Hi John, I was a bit surprised that you and Mr. G. both said you would vote for Mitt Romney for president (not that you believe he will run, but if he did). My reasoning is that, while he seems like a genuinely good, decent, and honorable human being, he was not exactly for small government. Romney-care is one example, but I always saw him as more of a Herbert Hoover type -- well-meaning, an excellent businessman, a person who considers himself a problem-solver, but not a huge believer in free-markets. Am I wrong? (It's been known to happen far more than I'd like to admit.) Thank you for today's discussion. Great job, as always!
I was lukewarm on Romney in 2012 (I voted for Newt in the primary), in part because I did indeed question his conservative credentials. Romneycare (in blue-state Massachusetts) was one reason, though I think his later explanation actually made sense: the state's Democratic legislature had written it, had a veto-proof majority, and was hell-bent on making it law with or without his support. So, as governor, he stepped in and tried to make it better, and in doing so basically took political ownership of it (an effort to take a lemon and make lemonade out of it). Regardless, I felt a lot better once Paul Ryan joined the ticket, and the campaign's focus was on economic/fiscal issues.
I became much more impressed with Romney in 2016, when he opposed Trump on principle, and publicly said what many Republicans knew was right, but were too cowardly to express themselves. When he became a U.S. Senator two years later, he served as a principled conservative (much more conservative and pro-free-market than Trump), and again showed a lot of moral courage, this time in standing up to Trump's abuses of power.
So yeah, at this point in history, I have a pretty high opinion of Romney. I hope he's enjoying retirement.
I don't think Mr. Romney distanced himself from Romneycare until his POTUS run. And what about in 1994 when he ran for Sen. Kennedy's seat and tried to out-liberal Sen. Kennedy?
Personally, Mr. Romney appears very decent. But when he's politicking he can be chameleon.
That surprised me as well. Romney should have won his bid against Obama in his run for a second term. He obliterated Obama in their first debate, but after that Romney seemed to self-destruct. It's almost as if he didn't want to win. He was a terrible candidate, IMHO, and I had to hold my nose to vote for him.
Nice job guys ... whenever i get my panties in a bunch over politicians clamoring about billionaires "paying their fair share" ... I pull up the 1979 video of Phil Donahue interviewing Milton Friedman. Donahue is practically begging Friedman to get on board the socialist train. Milton doesn't throw him a crumb. A classic that never gets old. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CPE8SzSqP/
As for life in outer space, I take it neither of you has watched Resident Alien. Must see TV
I am not sure that everyone who voted for Trump falls into the Maga category as described in this video. I voted for Trump as his vision came closer to mine than anyone else. I vote for the results/actions rather than the person. I would not vote for Don Jr. as the only thing he has provided is his relationship to his dad. I believe those who voted for Trump would be more likely to vote for someone who will carry on with policies that we find reflective of our beliefs. I would vote for Rubio over Vance as I don't or can't fully trust someone who has been a never Trumper also Vance was against Trumps actions with Iran. Vance would be a great VP to run with Rubio or Cruz as a VP. Cruz on the Supreme Court would be even better. I am far from being rich but I don't think the government should take away substantial wealth from individuals who earned it and give it to people who won't even work. Taxes wouldn't be so high if we could get rid of the fraud that runs so rampant. I voted for Mitt as he was the lesser of two evils.
As for the UFO's, we are too readily to believe they came from outer space. Other than seeing something flying, what proof do we really have? We don't even know everything that lives on or in this planet. I am a firm believer in the Bible as God's Holy Word. I don't accept, as some, that parts of it are stories made up to be an example, such as Jonah being in the belly of a fish for three days. It says God created the heavens and the earth. He created everything. I don't believe he created life on other planets but He could have. Since he created something out of nothing and created life here on the earth, to me, that pretty much explains it. Bernie, you have earned my respect since watching you over the years on Bill's program. John started out pretty good at first but, to me, started talking out of both sides of his mouth. I am still seeing where he is going at this point.
>>I am not sure that everyone who voted for Trump falls into the Maga category as described in this video.
Did one of us say that? If so, it was unintentional, being that neither of us believe that. What I've argued is that the GOP base, that votes in the primaries, is VERY high on (and loyal to) Donald Trump. I think that's objectively true.
>>John started out pretty good at first but, to me, started talking out of both sides of his mouth. I am still seeing where he is going at this point.
Translation: John started out criticizing only Democrats, but then criticized people on my team.
Socialists never learn. Two areas with government control are education and healthcare. I don't remember in the 60's that these two areas were high priced and no good as they are today. And the socialist say, give me more money and we will fix it.
If you need evidence of free market strategies working, just look at the countries where the socialist preaches redistribution of wealth and the rich need to pay their fair share. That's where you'll find capitalism shining. Of the top 25 valued companies in the world, 19 are American.
But in the end for the socialists, it has nothing to do about money or helping the poor. It's about power. To believe that a central government could manage hundreds of thousands of micro-economies in a city such as New York is an example of egotistical socialist madness.
Gentlemen i think that it would have been much more interesting for the two of you to discuss the missing scientists and the murdered scientists involved with UFO studies rather than the UFOs themselves.
Communists/socialists like AOC are not interested in job creation. They want the population to be reliant on government! And the immediate GOP frontrunner in 2028 will be Marco Rubio, not JD or Don, Jr. And stop with this "kings" BS!
I would love it if AOC won the Democratic nomination. It'll be Kamala, Mk. II. - more babblings and continuous word salads.
John Daly - you clearly hate Donald Trump! It's obvious!
Fair enough - my comment is based on seeing you on these podcasts for the last few months since becoming a subscriber. I've never seen you cast Trump in a positive light; there always seems to be a negative undertone when you talk about him. Maybe I'm overstating it as "hate", but there it is. ...
I do have a largely negative view of Trump, because I'm a small-government conservative who believes in adherence to the Constitution, free markets, free trade, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, quality of character, individual freedom, the rule of law, etc.
I hold him to the same standards I would hold (and have held) any president, and I support him on initiatives that I think he gets right, as I have with his Supreme Court picks, first-term tax reform, much of his Iran policy, etc.
Unfortunately, what many center-right news consumers have come to expect from media-conservatives is deference to Trump, celebration of Trump, and the reflexive vilification of his opponents (perceived or real). I'm not interested in that. I just voice what I honestly think, without considering whether it may offend those of a particular political persuasion. If that upsets people (and it certainly does), so be it.
By the way, in this particular episode, I was objectively more critical of AOC than I was Trump. And I don't hate her either.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by a balanced view, though.
If you mean praising him for every time I criticize him (like a 50/50 split), I think that would be disingenuous of me, because I feel the weight of the bad things he's done (and continues to do) is significantly more than that of the good things.
If you mean criticizing a Democrat for every time I criticize Trump (another 50/50 split), there's definitely enough existing material for that, but at this time in history, Trump and the GOP hold the presidency and both branches of Congress; they're calling the shots. The Dems are largely out of power and flailing.
Re: UFOs. You're yanknig the weakest links. What about the "TicTac" sighting? A veteran military pilot (I think since retied) testified before Congress that he saw several UFO's I think off the coast of San Diego when he was flying. They were hovering in formation and then suddenly changed their altitude. He said that their technology was FAR superior to anything he''s aware of.
We just have to admit, without succumbing to our compulsion to fill in the blanks, that there's a slew of phenomena that we just don't understand.
Greetings Mr. Hadley. So John is referring to a quote from the movie “E. T. The extraterrestrial.”
That said, I do wish the discussion had covered the missing & murdered scientists who have been investigating UFOs; I find that topic to be much more interesting.
Yes, that topic is interesting. Though some of the dead or murdered scientists are not at all mysterious. For example, one scientist was among those shot by the Brown University shooter.
This may turn out to be nothing, but I'd like to see the results of any investigation.
Additionally, I think those scientists have two common links: knowledge of UFO material but also knowledge of nuclear secrets.
As to the UFO) controversy, I think it's clear to anyone following it that there's something we don't understand. Whether any recesses of our gov. knows more is an open question.
Thanks for the info. And obviously, I haven't seen the movie ET.
Hi John, I was a bit surprised that you and Mr. G. both said you would vote for Mitt Romney for president (not that you believe he will run, but if he did). My reasoning is that, while he seems like a genuinely good, decent, and honorable human being, he was not exactly for small government. Romney-care is one example, but I always saw him as more of a Herbert Hoover type -- well-meaning, an excellent businessman, a person who considers himself a problem-solver, but not a huge believer in free-markets. Am I wrong? (It's been known to happen far more than I'd like to admit.) Thank you for today's discussion. Great job, as always!
Hi Bob.
I was lukewarm on Romney in 2012 (I voted for Newt in the primary), in part because I did indeed question his conservative credentials. Romneycare (in blue-state Massachusetts) was one reason, though I think his later explanation actually made sense: the state's Democratic legislature had written it, had a veto-proof majority, and was hell-bent on making it law with or without his support. So, as governor, he stepped in and tried to make it better, and in doing so basically took political ownership of it (an effort to take a lemon and make lemonade out of it). Regardless, I felt a lot better once Paul Ryan joined the ticket, and the campaign's focus was on economic/fiscal issues.
I became much more impressed with Romney in 2016, when he opposed Trump on principle, and publicly said what many Republicans knew was right, but were too cowardly to express themselves. When he became a U.S. Senator two years later, he served as a principled conservative (much more conservative and pro-free-market than Trump), and again showed a lot of moral courage, this time in standing up to Trump's abuses of power.
So yeah, at this point in history, I have a pretty high opinion of Romney. I hope he's enjoying retirement.
Thanks for listening!
Thank YOU for your thoughtful and detailed reply. Very appreciated!
Sure thing. I hope all is well.
I don't think Mr. Romney distanced himself from Romneycare until his POTUS run. And what about in 1994 when he ran for Sen. Kennedy's seat and tried to out-liberal Sen. Kennedy?
Personally, Mr. Romney appears very decent. But when he's politicking he can be chameleon.
That surprised me as well. Romney should have won his bid against Obama in his run for a second term. He obliterated Obama in their first debate, but after that Romney seemed to self-destruct. It's almost as if he didn't want to win. He was a terrible candidate, IMHO, and I had to hold my nose to vote for him.
Nice job guys ... whenever i get my panties in a bunch over politicians clamoring about billionaires "paying their fair share" ... I pull up the 1979 video of Phil Donahue interviewing Milton Friedman. Donahue is practically begging Friedman to get on board the socialist train. Milton doesn't throw him a crumb. A classic that never gets old. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CPE8SzSqP/
As for life in outer space, I take it neither of you has watched Resident Alien. Must see TV
I've watched Resident Alien. Fun show.
I am not sure that everyone who voted for Trump falls into the Maga category as described in this video. I voted for Trump as his vision came closer to mine than anyone else. I vote for the results/actions rather than the person. I would not vote for Don Jr. as the only thing he has provided is his relationship to his dad. I believe those who voted for Trump would be more likely to vote for someone who will carry on with policies that we find reflective of our beliefs. I would vote for Rubio over Vance as I don't or can't fully trust someone who has been a never Trumper also Vance was against Trumps actions with Iran. Vance would be a great VP to run with Rubio or Cruz as a VP. Cruz on the Supreme Court would be even better. I am far from being rich but I don't think the government should take away substantial wealth from individuals who earned it and give it to people who won't even work. Taxes wouldn't be so high if we could get rid of the fraud that runs so rampant. I voted for Mitt as he was the lesser of two evils.
As for the UFO's, we are too readily to believe they came from outer space. Other than seeing something flying, what proof do we really have? We don't even know everything that lives on or in this planet. I am a firm believer in the Bible as God's Holy Word. I don't accept, as some, that parts of it are stories made up to be an example, such as Jonah being in the belly of a fish for three days. It says God created the heavens and the earth. He created everything. I don't believe he created life on other planets but He could have. Since he created something out of nothing and created life here on the earth, to me, that pretty much explains it. Bernie, you have earned my respect since watching you over the years on Bill's program. John started out pretty good at first but, to me, started talking out of both sides of his mouth. I am still seeing where he is going at this point.
>>I am not sure that everyone who voted for Trump falls into the Maga category as described in this video.
Did one of us say that? If so, it was unintentional, being that neither of us believe that. What I've argued is that the GOP base, that votes in the primaries, is VERY high on (and loyal to) Donald Trump. I think that's objectively true.
>>John started out pretty good at first but, to me, started talking out of both sides of his mouth. I am still seeing where he is going at this point.
Translation: John started out criticizing only Democrats, but then criticized people on my team.
Socialists never learn. Two areas with government control are education and healthcare. I don't remember in the 60's that these two areas were high priced and no good as they are today. And the socialist say, give me more money and we will fix it.
If you need evidence of free market strategies working, just look at the countries where the socialist preaches redistribution of wealth and the rich need to pay their fair share. That's where you'll find capitalism shining. Of the top 25 valued companies in the world, 19 are American.
But in the end for the socialists, it has nothing to do about money or helping the poor. It's about power. To believe that a central government could manage hundreds of thousands of micro-economies in a city such as New York is an example of egotistical socialist madness.
Gentlemen i think that it would have been much more interesting for the two of you to discuss the missing scientists and the murdered scientists involved with UFO studies rather than the UFOs themselves.
You two belong on the Jimmy Kimmel show.
You should pray to the gold statue some more.
Communists/socialists like AOC are not interested in job creation. They want the population to be reliant on government! And the immediate GOP frontrunner in 2028 will be Marco Rubio, not JD or Don, Jr. And stop with this "kings" BS!
I would love it if AOC won the Democratic nomination. It'll be Kamala, Mk. II. - more babblings and continuous word salads.
John Daly - you clearly hate Donald Trump! It's obvious!
I don't hate anyone, Bill, including those who reflexively cast criticism of people they like as "hatred."
Hope that helps.
Fair enough - my comment is based on seeing you on these podcasts for the last few months since becoming a subscriber. I've never seen you cast Trump in a positive light; there always seems to be a negative undertone when you talk about him. Maybe I'm overstating it as "hate", but there it is. ...
I do have a largely negative view of Trump, because I'm a small-government conservative who believes in adherence to the Constitution, free markets, free trade, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, quality of character, individual freedom, the rule of law, etc.
I hold him to the same standards I would hold (and have held) any president, and I support him on initiatives that I think he gets right, as I have with his Supreme Court picks, first-term tax reform, much of his Iran policy, etc.
Unfortunately, what many center-right news consumers have come to expect from media-conservatives is deference to Trump, celebration of Trump, and the reflexive vilification of his opponents (perceived or real). I'm not interested in that. I just voice what I honestly think, without considering whether it may offend those of a particular political persuasion. If that upsets people (and it certainly does), so be it.
By the way, in this particular episode, I was objectively more critical of AOC than I was Trump. And I don't hate her either.
My apologies for overstating it. I would find it refreshing though to actually see you take this balanced view toward him.
Thanks.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by a balanced view, though.
If you mean praising him for every time I criticize him (like a 50/50 split), I think that would be disingenuous of me, because I feel the weight of the bad things he's done (and continues to do) is significantly more than that of the good things.
If you mean criticizing a Democrat for every time I criticize Trump (another 50/50 split), there's definitely enough existing material for that, but at this time in history, Trump and the GOP hold the presidency and both branches of Congress; they're calling the shots. The Dems are largely out of power and flailing.
Bernie,
Re: UFOs. You're yanknig the weakest links. What about the "TicTac" sighting? A veteran military pilot (I think since retied) testified before Congress that he saw several UFO's I think off the coast of San Diego when he was flying. They were hovering in formation and then suddenly changed their altitude. He said that their technology was FAR superior to anything he''s aware of.
We just have to admit, without succumbing to our compulsion to fill in the blanks, that there's a slew of phenomena that we just don't understand.
And writ large???? Come on, dude
This is a pretty defensive response... for a presumed earthling. 🤔
Defensive? What planet are you living on? lol
Phone home, Bob. Phone home.
What does that mean?
My God, man, it's only one of the most popular movies ever made!
Well Sir John here’s another movie dialogue in a cross-examination scene from an old movie classic comedy that you may or may not be familiar with.
I understand that you are the chairman of an organization that believes in UFOS.
“Yes sir.”
“Where was your last meeting held?”
“On Mars”
Props to those who can name the movie without going on Google. If anyone requires another clue, I’ll give it later.
Greetings Mr. Hadley. So John is referring to a quote from the movie “E. T. The extraterrestrial.”
That said, I do wish the discussion had covered the missing & murdered scientists who have been investigating UFOs; I find that topic to be much more interesting.
Yes, that topic is interesting. Though some of the dead or murdered scientists are not at all mysterious. For example, one scientist was among those shot by the Brown University shooter.
This may turn out to be nothing, but I'd like to see the results of any investigation.
Additionally, I think those scientists have two common links: knowledge of UFO material but also knowledge of nuclear secrets.
As to the UFO) controversy, I think it's clear to anyone following it that there's something we don't understand. Whether any recesses of our gov. knows more is an open question.
Thanks for the info. And obviously, I haven't seen the movie ET.