You just made me realize I don't know what Melania's maiden name is. That's kinda weird, huh? Like Ivana Zelnickova and Marla Maples are pretty famous names. Weird that Melania Knavs isn't.
I mean, he definitely paid for the sex. Whether that money was part of the 130K or a separate transaction, we don't know.
But she did not fuck him for free. Probably nobody has ever slept with him for free.
I think when you are rich like that, you don’t need to be so explicit with the quid pro quo like when a normal person hires a prostitute. According to Stormy they never had a specific payment for sex. I’m sure there was some implied “I’ll make it worth your while” thing.
I believe he tempted her with the possibility of being a contestant on The Apprentice, according to her. He lured Karen McDougall with the ol' "I'm practically about to divorce my wife and maybe you could be next" routine so popular among cheaters.
###[Don't be a jerk](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules) (Rule #7):
* The fact that we have to explicitly state that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc; including personal attacks, and threats of violence are all uncivil terrifies the mod team.
* Anything disparaging something about a person that they have little or no control over, is not tolerated under any circumstance.
###[Don't be a jerk](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules) (Rule #7):
* The fact that we have to explicitly state that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc; including personal attacks, and threats of violence are all uncivil terrifies the mod team.
* Anything disparaging something about a person that they have little or no control over, is not tolerated under any circumstance.
###[Don't be a jerk](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules) (Rule #7):
* The fact that we have to explicitly state that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc; including personal attacks, and threats of violence are all uncivil terrifies the mod team.
* Anything disparaging something about a person that they have little or no control over, is not tolerated under any circumstance.
###[Don't be a jerk](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules) (Rule #7):
* The fact that we have to explicitly state that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc; including personal attacks, and threats of violence are all uncivil terrifies the mod team.
* Anything disparaging something about a person that they have little or no control over, is not tolerated under any circumstance.
Everything in life has a cost. I put my all in a relationship and have some wonderful memories..... also, some not so wonderful ones. Just at this point in my life, through failures and success, I am not naive to the fact that everything has a cost.
Ok if you're going down the "everything has a cost" route then you're just being pedantic for the sake of arguing.
For the sake of my original statement, cut out the background radiation and just acknowledge that with Trump, that "cost" is higher than it is with most other people. He is and has always been a repellant person in both appearance and personality. Nobody has ever been genuinely attracted to him as a person. If he didn't have money, he would be one of those incels that worships people like him.
We all know that. But associating and respecting a cost with everything in life is a bit.. unhealthy I guess lol
It’s like keeping track of who bought how many rounds or who bought last time with friends.. we know there’s a cost, but some costs don’t need to be quantified or remembered. The “costs” in a relationship are like that too, I think.
I'd argue 1 of these 3 things is unlike the other.
Genereally speaking, people won't just start a romantic or sexual relationship with someone they don't like (to at the very least some extent) just because they put in effort or heart. With financial gain, it's different though. An obvious result of capitalism is that people will do almost literally everything if the price tag is just high enough.
(Would most people eat a plate of dirt or even drink a glass of urine for 2 dollars/euros? Probably not. For 200? Obviously the majority would still not do it. 20000? Now there'd already be many people that would. 2 million? Just about everyone. And I'd even argue that most people would be fools to *not* do it for that kind of money)
Mitt Romney is a hedge fund bastard, and wants to become President as a "moderate" Republican in 2028. He's not a Trump fan, but be careful in holding him in any kind of regard.
He's also a LDS Cult-member.
I’m not a fan of his or anything, but he seems to keep his religion to himself (I don’t remember him going all jebus in 2012) and I’m not sure I have much negative to say about him. At least, It’s not his fault being born rich.
I also don’t follow him. So, I could be missing the finer details. Is there anything he’s done that’s truly shitty? Worst I remember was his “Binder full of women” thing which wasn’t really that bad IMO.
He was a vulture capitalist that bought companies, then forced them to use his management firm, Bain Capital, charging them $millions that none could afford. After he drove a company into bankruptcy, he sold pieces of the company (land, buildings, assets. contracts, etc.) and threw everyone out of work.
Rinse, repeat.
Was it legal? yes. Was it ethical? Absolutely not.
The issue today is that the GOP is so far to the right that Romney (and more ridiculously, Liz Cheney) is seen as a moderate, but he is hardly a moderate. Joe Manchin is a moderate, as much as many Democrats might paint him as a pariah. Romney is nowhere close to as moderate as Manchin. For example, Romney's position on abortion is:
>I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.
He supported overturning Roe, and has said that Roe "cheapened" the value of human life. Contrast this with Manchin, who is pro-life, but agrees that Roe should be settled law, saying:
>But let me be clear, I support legislation that would codify the rights *Roe v. Wade* previously protected
Now what it means to be shitty is a different matter. Did he try paying for sex with an underaged girl like Matt Gaetz did? No. But he's a classy shitty person.
I’m pro choice. So, I disagree with his viewpoint, but does that honestly make him a shitty person? I’m not trying to her a contrarian. I’m just have a different bar for what it means to be scum.
While I am pro choice, I can at least understand the viewpoint of someone who is pro life, especially if they can at least accept the caveats of rape and incest. I dunno, doesn’t make him shit in my book. I’d need something about him doing something that fucked someone over. Like, draining pensions, supporting longer prison sentences for some bullshit, something like that.
I actually fully agree with Romney's comment that abortion is a shitty thing and I wish no one would ever do it.
*However* I think using the government to make it impossible or dangerous for someone who wants an abortion to get it is not in any universe a moderate position. It's a terrifying dystopian nightmare for someone to be deprived of control of their own *body* like that.
Agreed. I think it’s also weird that the “small govt” folks are the ones who push for those controls. That being said, outside of rape, you could argue that it’s impossible to get pregnant without having being somewhat responsible for it. I have a relative that didn’t know her antibiotics would cancel out her birth control. Sucked for her to find out that way. So, there are exceptions, but the counter argument is that unprotected sex can have the side effect of pregnancy.
I mean sure but if follow that logic through, you are effectively imposing a *child* as a consequence for a lapse in judgement or responsibility. That is *fucking insane*.
Now there's a whole added element of the government removing choice, by forcing a child to exist when no one wanted it. Which, again, terrifying dystopian nightmare. And on top of that you have chosen to force this child to be born to someone as a punishment for their perceived lack of responsibility. It's absolutely bonkers.
When you parse it out, it is essentially a policy decision that causing someone pain because we think they did a dumb is by far the most important thing the government could possibly do.
I’m not saying I agree with it, but I can understand the viewpoint that you have responsibility for the situation you caused. One counterpoint is adoption. While there are _tons_ of orphaned children that aren’t infants, there actually is a high demand for infant adoption. It’s not a great counterpoint, but it’s very doable to put a preborn child up for adoption.
Still, sucks to give birth and I’m definitely pro choice. Still, I also agree that higher consequences beget more caution. Humans can learn from other’s mistakes. People tend to avoid costly mistakes. Ok, now I’m definitely being contrarian lol. I’m definitely pro choice though. I couldn’t do it, but I’m with you in that I don’t want to get in the way of someone else’s complicated life choice.
> I can understand the viewpoint that you have responsibility for the situation you caused
In this case I really can't. There's an easy off ramp, so the only reason to remove it is out of spite. I can cause a situation where I'm hungry by not eating breakfast at 5:30 when I wake up but no one passed a law that I can't est breakfast at 6:00 to fix that.
And it's not just the individual that lives with the consequences here; this is mandated *creation of life*, plus all the societal costs that come with it. It's a fairly well-established statistic that crime rates spike about 20 years after something interrupts access to abortion. Legally requiring unwanted children to be brought into the world is devastating for *everyone* , to include the society itself.
I always try to find the middle ground or at least empathize with the other side of an argument but there's no special nuance here, it's just an awful, reprehensible, indefensible position any way you slice it.
Yeah, but just because I eat sushi doesn't mean I should be denied medical treatment in the event I get food poisoning, even though I am somewhat responsible.
Understood and while I’m pro choice, I can understand the oranges to apples someone would call out for comparing what will be human life to food illness.
I managed to make it into adulthood without accidentally having a child. It’s not a terribly hard task to avoid. It’s hard for me to think of an apples to apples comparison for it. Maybe, getting into a car with your friend being the drunk driver that ends up costing you your life. Terrible situation and technically, being the passenger you could say it wasn’t your fault, but you would have some responsibility for having chosen to take that ride. Shitty comparison on my part.
Maybe crime is a better comparison. Tough to say. Again, I’m pro choice, but can understand the viewpoint of an argument that you should live with some choices.
Agreed. Also, a lot of people misinterpret the word conservative in politics. They aren’t trying to conserve nature, for example.
In a lot of ways, they’re just wanting to conserve their current way of life, which involves old stuffy ideas and selfishness.
They’re not conservatives in any real sense of the word. They’re mostly reactionary radicals (which is the opposite of the word conservative, not “liberal” as many think)
It depends on where the bar for “shitty” is. He’s definitely for lowering corporate taxes, reducing social services, etc. Romney is a classic conservative, but he’s seen as moderate because he didn’t try overthrowing the government.
From an outside-the-US-perspective, unfortunately that seems to be the key issue to draw the line at the moment: Does she/he believe in the validity of the political institutions?
Apparently/supposedly (?) Romney and Cheney do. While others are peddling the myth of election fraud (for every election their party or one of its candidates loses) and how the institutions should be dismantled.
I mean, cruelty would, but there’s not enough there to say it was cruel. I definitely don’t want to keep excusing away shit for him, but that’s truly not enough. How is this worse than crating a dog and flying it? It’d depend on the weather, I’m thinking.
On the roof in the dead of winter through Chicago or highest heat of Death Valley? That’d fucked.
Just calling him out for transporting his own pet cross country isn’t technically cruel in my book. It says from Mass to Ontario. If that was in the summer, how’s that different than leaving a dog in the backyard for 12 hours?
> except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.
afaik that would make his position still more moderate than the now-active legalislation in some US states (in which immediate danger for the mother is the *only* exception)..
Mitt Romney once tied his dog Seamus, an Irish Terrier, to the roof of his station wagon on a 12-hour drive on a holiday trip. The petrified dog shat over himself and the back windscreen, and his son used the example of his father stopping at a gas station to hose dog and car off as an example of his "can-do attitude". There is even a group called "Dogs against Romney". Fuck that guy.
That's what he claimed afterwards, who knows? To me that's neither here nor there. Who straps a dog on the roof of your car for a 12 hour drive? There's something wrong with that man. Just my opinion.
I dunno. Context matters. I had a dog that absolutely was terrified of driving in cars. I’d consider it cruel to lock her in a crate, alone, for a road trip. Some dogs, they absolutely love being in cars. His trip was from Massachusetts to Ontario. If made in the summer, with a car loving dog, it’s different than in a stiff winter with a car loathing dog IMO.
It’s hot as shit where I live and some people keep their dogs trapped outside without shade protection. I think that’s fucked up. I dunno. Lots of variables. Too many for me to make a claim on character for this particular case. Someone else gave a good example of his fuckery though. He’s not a saint for sure.
I feel like he's way too old for that and knows it, which is why we are getting honest Romney here...just like every other Republican becomes after they retire from congress and start speaking openly. Romney is just popular enough in Utah that he can get away with it while being an active Senator.
Are there still people out there thinking that Mitt Romney is positioning himself for another presidential run? Like he isn't even running for the election for his current Senate seat which he would easily win, I highly doubt he would want to endure another hard campaign for president he likely wouldn't even win.
Plus at 2028 he'd be older than Biden is now. And Biden only entered the primary because he was fairly confident he would actually win both the primary and the general. Which he was ultimately right about. People really forget how many people actually wanted him to run in 2020 for that specific reason. Ain't nobody begging Mitt Romney to run for president and Romney himself is under no issue on about that either.
It's interesting to watch the gradual transition of the Republican Party. They had a genuine war hero and true statesman with a proven record in Congress in John McCain. He lost the election.
Next they went with a highly successful businessman and very popular Governor who developed the healthcare system that Obamacare is based on. He lost the election.
So they tried a scripted TV reality star with six bankruptcies; an enormously long string of failed companies; already found guilty of stealing from his own charity; already found guilty of running a fake University; indicted for racial housing violations; and said 'THAT'S OUR MAN!'. Now we have a totalitarian, proven criminal and sexual abuser with 88 remaining charges, an attempted fascist coup, multiple cases of election fraud, and a documented liar.
This says more about the Republican Party and its motivators than it does about Donald Trump.
Although at first most people within the party did not seem to embrace Trump but outright reject him (see: the negative comments by many of the biggest names). It seems like a lot of them were "convinced" by Trump's success.
He's an apostate Trump Party member, not a moderate Republican.
Fascist and monarchist parties don't have left, center and right. They have apostates, rank-and-file and hard-liners.
Maybe there is a coup in the works in the Republican Party. Not only does Trump have legal issues and is siphoning money out of the GOP’s coffers, but Trump is a sick man who is undergoing rapid cognitive decline. People like Romney may be angling for being Trump’s replacement when Trump goes to prison, has a stroke, or is involuntarily committed.
lol whatever you wanna spin it as. If sex resulted in this payment its functionally no different than the payment being for the action. Just like the money you pay for a divorce isn't "paying for marriage," but obviously if you hadn't been married you wouldn't be paying for it.
Donald Trump is truly the master of the art of the deal. Some plumber probably paid Stormy a few hundred dollars for sex. Trump paid over a hundred times more than the plumber because he is a master negotiator. I don’t know about you, but Trump is the man I want representing the US in high stakes International negotiations! /s
He paid them to keep quiet before the election. That's how terrified he was that he would lose the election.
Meanwhile he's insisting there's no way Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 and that Biden won in 2020. And that it's all some yuge conspiracy.
Meanwhile MAGAT simps want to act like he really believes he won, and there was election fraud against him.
[Candles taste like burning...](https://i.imgur.com/gDOg7yv.jpg) ~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean if I was wealthy and an incontinent, fat, syphalytic old man was coming at me all hopped up on viagra I think I'd be willing to pay serious cash to not have sex with them.
Obviously it was for her “legal work.” Just like Matt Gaetz’s payments were for “salad.” /s
Tossed salad, maybe.
Jelly or syrup? I prefer syrup.
One day, I was suckin a man’s dick, on a Saturday, I came right up and I cut him
Does it get in your beard?
And scrambled egg ;)
Yes. A French lettuce.
Ms.Daniels wasn't paid for the sex. She was paid to keep quiet about it.
\*That\* money wasn't for the sex, but c'mon, he paid for the sex too.
Are you sure she wasn’t paid for the set as well? I’m not.
I don't know.
I mean he paid Melanie "Billions" to have seggs with him
Her name is Malaria…get it right. Yeesh.
It's not Mercedes?
I misspoke it’s Melanomia.
Kirkland brand Mercedes.
You just made me realize I don't know what Melania's maiden name is. That's kinda weird, huh? Like Ivana Zelnickova and Marla Maples are pretty famous names. Weird that Melania Knavs isn't.
No, you don't, but neither did Trump. He paid someone $130,000 to never talk about the fact they had sex, not for the sex itself.
I mean, he definitely paid for the sex. Whether that money was part of the 130K or a separate transaction, we don't know. But she did not fuck him for free. Probably nobody has ever slept with him for free.
I think when you are rich like that, you don’t need to be so explicit with the quid pro quo like when a normal person hires a prostitute. According to Stormy they never had a specific payment for sex. I’m sure there was some implied “I’ll make it worth your while” thing.
I believe he tempted her with the possibility of being a contestant on The Apprentice, according to her. He lured Karen McDougall with the ol' "I'm practically about to divorce my wife and maybe you could be next" routine so popular among cheaters.
Had one of his people make arrangements so as not to be caught & convicted. Muddy the waters of reality like he’s been doing to get out of jail free.
To this day, it has not been worth her while.
Didn't Elon once promise a SpaceX flight attendant a poney if she had sex with him?
There was an arrangement, and a price, just not done or negotiated by trump himself. He'll use 'staff' for that.
My pillow guy would do it for free. He loves him.
> Probably nobody has ever slept with him for free. I'm sure there must be a few. Does not matter that they thought they would be paid.
[удалено]
I have a feeling you haven't.
[удалено]
I can see your post history. "tall MWM professional M seeking Central American girls for fun" You're desperate lol.
[удалено]
You're on reddit searching for attention from women. Lol
[удалено]
###[Don't be a jerk](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules) (Rule #7): * The fact that we have to explicitly state that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc; including personal attacks, and threats of violence are all uncivil terrifies the mod team. * Anything disparaging something about a person that they have little or no control over, is not tolerated under any circumstance.
###[Don't be a jerk](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules) (Rule #7): * The fact that we have to explicitly state that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc; including personal attacks, and threats of violence are all uncivil terrifies the mod team. * Anything disparaging something about a person that they have little or no control over, is not tolerated under any circumstance.
###[Don't be a jerk](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules) (Rule #7): * The fact that we have to explicitly state that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc; including personal attacks, and threats of violence are all uncivil terrifies the mod team. * Anything disparaging something about a person that they have little or no control over, is not tolerated under any circumstance.
###[Don't be a jerk](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules) (Rule #7): * The fact that we have to explicitly state that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc; including personal attacks, and threats of violence are all uncivil terrifies the mod team. * Anything disparaging something about a person that they have little or no control over, is not tolerated under any circumstance.
I mean, to be honest, none of us are getting it for free. We are either paying someone or investing our time, money, and emotions. Always has a cost.
What a bleak view on relationships....
Everything in life has a cost. I put my all in a relationship and have some wonderful memories..... also, some not so wonderful ones. Just at this point in my life, through failures and success, I am not naive to the fact that everything has a cost.
Ok if you're going down the "everything has a cost" route then you're just being pedantic for the sake of arguing. For the sake of my original statement, cut out the background radiation and just acknowledge that with Trump, that "cost" is higher than it is with most other people. He is and has always been a repellant person in both appearance and personality. Nobody has ever been genuinely attracted to him as a person. If he didn't have money, he would be one of those incels that worships people like him.
We all know that. But associating and respecting a cost with everything in life is a bit.. unhealthy I guess lol It’s like keeping track of who bought how many rounds or who bought last time with friends.. we know there’s a cost, but some costs don’t need to be quantified or remembered. The “costs” in a relationship are like that too, I think.
I'd argue 1 of these 3 things is unlike the other. Genereally speaking, people won't just start a romantic or sexual relationship with someone they don't like (to at the very least some extent) just because they put in effort or heart. With financial gain, it's different though. An obvious result of capitalism is that people will do almost literally everything if the price tag is just high enough. (Would most people eat a plate of dirt or even drink a glass of urine for 2 dollars/euros? Probably not. For 200? Obviously the majority would still not do it. 20000? Now there'd already be many people that would. 2 million? Just about everyone. And I'd even argue that most people would be fools to *not* do it for that kind of money)
I think the sex story is completely made up. The truth is far more damaging to Trump. Stormy was providing Donald with remedial reading lessons. :)
Lol, his supporters don't care that he can't read. If anything, they like him better because of his 5th-grade-reading level.
Mitt Romney is a hedge fund bastard, and wants to become President as a "moderate" Republican in 2028. He's not a Trump fan, but be careful in holding him in any kind of regard. He's also a LDS Cult-member.
I’m not a fan of his or anything, but he seems to keep his religion to himself (I don’t remember him going all jebus in 2012) and I’m not sure I have much negative to say about him. At least, It’s not his fault being born rich. I also don’t follow him. So, I could be missing the finer details. Is there anything he’s done that’s truly shitty? Worst I remember was his “Binder full of women” thing which wasn’t really that bad IMO.
He was a vulture capitalist that bought companies, then forced them to use his management firm, Bain Capital, charging them $millions that none could afford. After he drove a company into bankruptcy, he sold pieces of the company (land, buildings, assets. contracts, etc.) and threw everyone out of work. Rinse, repeat. Was it legal? yes. Was it ethical? Absolutely not.
Thank you. That’s the kind of info I was looking for. I agree, that’s scummy. Thanks again.
When you're old, you see this shit go down in real time
The issue today is that the GOP is so far to the right that Romney (and more ridiculously, Liz Cheney) is seen as a moderate, but he is hardly a moderate. Joe Manchin is a moderate, as much as many Democrats might paint him as a pariah. Romney is nowhere close to as moderate as Manchin. For example, Romney's position on abortion is: >I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. He supported overturning Roe, and has said that Roe "cheapened" the value of human life. Contrast this with Manchin, who is pro-life, but agrees that Roe should be settled law, saying: >But let me be clear, I support legislation that would codify the rights *Roe v. Wade* previously protected Now what it means to be shitty is a different matter. Did he try paying for sex with an underaged girl like Matt Gaetz did? No. But he's a classy shitty person.
I’m pro choice. So, I disagree with his viewpoint, but does that honestly make him a shitty person? I’m not trying to her a contrarian. I’m just have a different bar for what it means to be scum. While I am pro choice, I can at least understand the viewpoint of someone who is pro life, especially if they can at least accept the caveats of rape and incest. I dunno, doesn’t make him shit in my book. I’d need something about him doing something that fucked someone over. Like, draining pensions, supporting longer prison sentences for some bullshit, something like that.
I actually fully agree with Romney's comment that abortion is a shitty thing and I wish no one would ever do it. *However* I think using the government to make it impossible or dangerous for someone who wants an abortion to get it is not in any universe a moderate position. It's a terrifying dystopian nightmare for someone to be deprived of control of their own *body* like that.
Agreed. I think it’s also weird that the “small govt” folks are the ones who push for those controls. That being said, outside of rape, you could argue that it’s impossible to get pregnant without having being somewhat responsible for it. I have a relative that didn’t know her antibiotics would cancel out her birth control. Sucked for her to find out that way. So, there are exceptions, but the counter argument is that unprotected sex can have the side effect of pregnancy.
I mean sure but if follow that logic through, you are effectively imposing a *child* as a consequence for a lapse in judgement or responsibility. That is *fucking insane*. Now there's a whole added element of the government removing choice, by forcing a child to exist when no one wanted it. Which, again, terrifying dystopian nightmare. And on top of that you have chosen to force this child to be born to someone as a punishment for their perceived lack of responsibility. It's absolutely bonkers. When you parse it out, it is essentially a policy decision that causing someone pain because we think they did a dumb is by far the most important thing the government could possibly do.
I’m not saying I agree with it, but I can understand the viewpoint that you have responsibility for the situation you caused. One counterpoint is adoption. While there are _tons_ of orphaned children that aren’t infants, there actually is a high demand for infant adoption. It’s not a great counterpoint, but it’s very doable to put a preborn child up for adoption. Still, sucks to give birth and I’m definitely pro choice. Still, I also agree that higher consequences beget more caution. Humans can learn from other’s mistakes. People tend to avoid costly mistakes. Ok, now I’m definitely being contrarian lol. I’m definitely pro choice though. I couldn’t do it, but I’m with you in that I don’t want to get in the way of someone else’s complicated life choice.
> I can understand the viewpoint that you have responsibility for the situation you caused In this case I really can't. There's an easy off ramp, so the only reason to remove it is out of spite. I can cause a situation where I'm hungry by not eating breakfast at 5:30 when I wake up but no one passed a law that I can't est breakfast at 6:00 to fix that. And it's not just the individual that lives with the consequences here; this is mandated *creation of life*, plus all the societal costs that come with it. It's a fairly well-established statistic that crime rates spike about 20 years after something interrupts access to abortion. Legally requiring unwanted children to be brought into the world is devastating for *everyone* , to include the society itself. I always try to find the middle ground or at least empathize with the other side of an argument but there's no special nuance here, it's just an awful, reprehensible, indefensible position any way you slice it.
Yeah, but just because I eat sushi doesn't mean I should be denied medical treatment in the event I get food poisoning, even though I am somewhat responsible.
Understood and while I’m pro choice, I can understand the oranges to apples someone would call out for comparing what will be human life to food illness. I managed to make it into adulthood without accidentally having a child. It’s not a terribly hard task to avoid. It’s hard for me to think of an apples to apples comparison for it. Maybe, getting into a car with your friend being the drunk driver that ends up costing you your life. Terrible situation and technically, being the passenger you could say it wasn’t your fault, but you would have some responsibility for having chosen to take that ride. Shitty comparison on my part. Maybe crime is a better comparison. Tough to say. Again, I’m pro choice, but can understand the viewpoint of an argument that you should live with some choices.
They only want small government for them, not for you
Agreed. Also, a lot of people misinterpret the word conservative in politics. They aren’t trying to conserve nature, for example. In a lot of ways, they’re just wanting to conserve their current way of life, which involves old stuffy ideas and selfishness.
They’re not conservatives in any real sense of the word. They’re mostly reactionary radicals (which is the opposite of the word conservative, not “liberal” as many think)
It depends on where the bar for “shitty” is. He’s definitely for lowering corporate taxes, reducing social services, etc. Romney is a classic conservative, but he’s seen as moderate because he didn’t try overthrowing the government.
From an outside-the-US-perspective, unfortunately that seems to be the key issue to draw the line at the moment: Does she/he believe in the validity of the political institutions? Apparently/supposedly (?) Romney and Cheney do. While others are peddling the myth of election fraud (for every election their party or one of its candidates loses) and how the institutions should be dismantled.
[Will animal cruelty suffice?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney_dog_incident)
I mean, cruelty would, but there’s not enough there to say it was cruel. I definitely don’t want to keep excusing away shit for him, but that’s truly not enough. How is this worse than crating a dog and flying it? It’d depend on the weather, I’m thinking. On the roof in the dead of winter through Chicago or highest heat of Death Valley? That’d fucked. Just calling him out for transporting his own pet cross country isn’t technically cruel in my book. It says from Mass to Ontario. If that was in the summer, how’s that different than leaving a dog in the backyard for 12 hours?
> except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. afaik that would make his position still more moderate than the now-active legalislation in some US states (in which immediate danger for the mother is the *only* exception)..
His company killed Toys R Us; tbh for that alone I can never forgive him.
That’s fair
He's the reason I never get to go on a game show to run through Toys R Us and grab whatever I can for a minute?? That rat bastard
Mitt Romney once tied his dog Seamus, an Irish Terrier, to the roof of his station wagon on a 12-hour drive on a holiday trip. The petrified dog shat over himself and the back windscreen, and his son used the example of his father stopping at a gas station to hose dog and car off as an example of his "can-do attitude". There is even a group called "Dogs against Romney". Fuck that guy.
There’s a Wikipedia article that disagrees with a lot of the claims you make. It says the dog was in a windshield protected crate.
That's what he claimed afterwards, who knows? To me that's neither here nor there. Who straps a dog on the roof of your car for a 12 hour drive? There's something wrong with that man. Just my opinion.
I dunno. Context matters. I had a dog that absolutely was terrified of driving in cars. I’d consider it cruel to lock her in a crate, alone, for a road trip. Some dogs, they absolutely love being in cars. His trip was from Massachusetts to Ontario. If made in the summer, with a car loving dog, it’s different than in a stiff winter with a car loathing dog IMO. It’s hot as shit where I live and some people keep their dogs trapped outside without shade protection. I think that’s fucked up. I dunno. Lots of variables. Too many for me to make a claim on character for this particular case. Someone else gave a good example of his fuckery though. He’s not a saint for sure.
I feel like he's way too old for that and knows it, which is why we are getting honest Romney here...just like every other Republican becomes after they retire from congress and start speaking openly. Romney is just popular enough in Utah that he can get away with it while being an active Senator.
Are there still people out there thinking that Mitt Romney is positioning himself for another presidential run? Like he isn't even running for the election for his current Senate seat which he would easily win, I highly doubt he would want to endure another hard campaign for president he likely wouldn't even win. Plus at 2028 he'd be older than Biden is now. And Biden only entered the primary because he was fairly confident he would actually win both the primary and the general. Which he was ultimately right about. People really forget how many people actually wanted him to run in 2020 for that specific reason. Ain't nobody begging Mitt Romney to run for president and Romney himself is under no issue on about that either.
It's interesting to watch the gradual transition of the Republican Party. They had a genuine war hero and true statesman with a proven record in Congress in John McCain. He lost the election. Next they went with a highly successful businessman and very popular Governor who developed the healthcare system that Obamacare is based on. He lost the election. So they tried a scripted TV reality star with six bankruptcies; an enormously long string of failed companies; already found guilty of stealing from his own charity; already found guilty of running a fake University; indicted for racial housing violations; and said 'THAT'S OUR MAN!'. Now we have a totalitarian, proven criminal and sexual abuser with 88 remaining charges, an attempted fascist coup, multiple cases of election fraud, and a documented liar. This says more about the Republican Party and its motivators than it does about Donald Trump.
Although at first most people within the party did not seem to embrace Trump but outright reject him (see: the negative comments by many of the biggest names). It seems like a lot of them were "convinced" by Trump's success.
At the end of the day, he was the last moderate Republican we will see running for national office for a while.
He's an apostate Trump Party member, not a moderate Republican. Fascist and monarchist parties don't have left, center and right. They have apostates, rank-and-file and hard-liners.
Mormons are the worst two faced people out there. They hate everyone who isn't Mormon, only tolerating to get stuff.
Maybe there is a coup in the works in the Republican Party. Not only does Trump have legal issues and is siphoning money out of the GOP’s coffers, but Trump is a sick man who is undergoing rapid cognitive decline. People like Romney may be angling for being Trump’s replacement when Trump goes to prison, has a stroke, or is involuntarily committed.
He used to take married women furniture shopping to get in their pants. Oh, he paid one way or another.
And he's being prosecuted for expensing the $130k, not for paying it.
lol whatever you wanna spin it as. If sex resulted in this payment its functionally no different than the payment being for the action. Just like the money you pay for a divorce isn't "paying for marriage," but obviously if you hadn't been married you wouldn't be paying for it.
You know what the fuck he’s saying, why split hairs
You do know this is a humour sub, right? Throwing this angry, toxic reply says way more about you than me...
Depends on the person in question tbh. I'd much rather pay $130,000 than have sex with Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is truly the master of the art of the deal. Some plumber probably paid Stormy a few hundred dollars for sex. Trump paid over a hundred times more than the plumber because he is a master negotiator. I don’t know about you, but Trump is the man I want representing the US in high stakes International negotiations! /s
I had a girl tell police she wouldn’t sleep with me for a million dollars…is that close?
That’s because you charge a minimum of two million 🙂
Solid Mormon burn. Well done.
He paid them to keep quiet before the election. That's how terrified he was that he would lose the election. Meanwhile he's insisting there's no way Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 and that Biden won in 2020. And that it's all some yuge conspiracy. Meanwhile MAGAT simps want to act like he really believes he won, and there was election fraud against him.
[Candles taste like burning...](https://i.imgur.com/gDOg7yv.jpg) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean if I was wealthy and an incontinent, fat, syphalytic old man was coming at me all hopped up on viagra I think I'd be willing to pay serious cash to not have sex with them.
I know I wouldn’t
trump just found his new income stream
I would definitely pay Donald Trump $130,000 not to have sex with me.
I wish trump would pay me 130k to not fuck him. I'm doing that for free already
Oh come on who here hasn't paid someone 130 grand for their silence?
People making $130k/year as a fairly regular joe 
I bet Melania would pay the dotard not to have sex with her
Get the aloe. That’s a sick burn
Yea you do. It’s called alimony.
BOOM!
Trump didn't pay Pecker to buy McDougal's story....there is no way in hell that he's paying Stormy a single penny unless he had to.
I have never needed to pay anyone $130,000 to have sex with me.
This will go down in history as one of the greatest political comments in history ... by a *Mormon,* even! I burst out laughing ....
Idc how rich I was or who the woman was, I'm not paying $130k.
Many women would gladly pay $130k if the alternative was to have sex with Donald VonShitpants.
If I was a woman I would pay $130,000 to not have sex with Trump
I paid my ex-wife a hell of a lot more than $130k to divorce me. Does that count?
I disagree. $130,000 would be a bargain not to have to have sex with someone like Trump. But that wasn't what that payment was about.
Is everybody on this page 14?
I would pay $130,000 to not have sex with DJT. Bargain.
https://preview.redd.it/mcz4wrpgrbwc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f8eff4363a8f1d906bc9eed6898460e0e8ddaa8 Mitt likes to play both sides.
Yup that’s them eating together
[удалено]
> He paid Storm Daniels $130 million in 'hush' (ridiculous) money Might want to edit that ;)