Sure goes on all the time. Why would we think ol' Mittens is above reproach and the only Republican senator with integrity and honor, the only true patriot? Gets standing ovations at Democratic debates. All hail St. Mittens who in 2012 was suspected as being the anti christ and has made a remarkable transition to see the Holy light. All hail St. Mittens. The one lone standing Republican on the planet with integrity and honor something that until now has been the exclusive domain of Democrats. Bow down before his greatness. Everything that I have said about St. Mittens is subjective, a throwing up a little in the mouth reaction to the fawning. That is all and you guys want an objective discussion on the empirical evidence of his motivations replete with charts and data. Sometimes I think some of you guys deserve Trump, a lot of you certainly had a hand in creating what he has become. Instances like these only strengthen his support as many succumb to the irresistible urge to support him just to watch sanctimonious heads explode. This is a real thing, I'm telling ya. Irrational? Sure, but no more irrational than fawning over St. Mittens.
Edit: And I tried to read that link you posted as much as I could but the hero worship got a little thick and I had to refrain. I mean I liked Obama's style too enough to vote for him (though Mccain made this an easier choice) but c'mon.
I see the same thing with many Trump supporters who hail him as the savior. It is unhealthy to worship any person even athletes and entertainers, but certainly not politicians. You can support them and like their ideas, but this hero worship stuff is out of control in all aspects of society.
I mean you guys can continue to be baffled by all of this continued growing support of Trump and chalk it up solely to racism, bigotry, xenophobia, fear and anger, but it is much more than that. You can continue to look down upon them with disdain and hope they just die out or admit and address some of the mistakes that progressives have made and are still making that helped to create this backlash. I say the same things to Trump supporters who see this as a pure good vs. evil scenario, this is a preposterous notion. The answers are all within ourselves and until we figure that out, we are all just blowin' in the wind.
Do you have any proof that he didn't? It is called opinion. Prove me wrong.
An opinion based on adolescent vindictiveness. Right in line with Trump's shtick. What really blows is that many of Trump's defenders actually believe that EVERYBODY ELSE is as petulant, vengeful, petty and self-absorbed as Trump.
Mitto was the very image of the dignified Republican, corporate friend, faith-based, etc. Not a fan of his, but I sensed it was a very personal moment for him and his faith. He is being crucified by his own party, the party he was once a Presidential candidate for ... and may have been again someday. But this sealed his political fate. The calcified hard right allows no dissenters. Retribution will be swift and hard. This is not grace. This is not 'moving forward for the good of the nation.' This is junior high, mean-girl moves.
Its called opinion. Prove me wrong.
Why would I try to prove an unproveable opinion wrong? Seems like an action of futility yet you guys are spending a lot of time on this. That is your opinion and I have mine, but you guys keep wanting to go on about this. You believe him great, I don't. What's to prove?
Everything you just posted above is just your speculation based upon your own observations.
Either
you take Romney at his word and believe him or you don't. The only
proof that you are right is to take Romney at his word. And that you
are required to trust Romney completely. A risky venture when dealing
with a politician ...
I can only conclude that you believe him
100% whereas sird and myself both have some doubts and have expressed
the reasons for having these doubts. Same as you have expressed the
reasons for you believing Romney. Such is the court of public
perception.
True, none of us has full access to Romney's thinking and motivations. And yes, you might call my last post full speculationâbut it's informed speculation based on facts and an attempt at logical thinking.
Do you dispute that he as a JD and MBA from Harvard? Or that he was Governor of MA and is a US Senator?
Do you dispute that Romney's vote for removal of Trump likely ran counter to the good fortune of his career as a Republican politician and another possible run for POTUS? If so, please explain how Romney's vote will materially help his standing, alliances and popular support among Republican politicians and voters?
Do you dispute that Romney's vote did little or no harm to Trump?
I'm not going to ask you to comment on my statement that Trump was caught red-handed committing impeachable offenses because I don't have much faith in your ability to be logical, impartial or deeply informed when it comes to Trump, Ukraine and impeachment. You apparently agreed with Dershowitz's opinion and that's fine. FWIW, senior legal analyst at Fox Judge Andrew Napolitano believes that Trump was clearly guilty and deserved removal. Napolitano btw believes that the argument that Trump's actions didn't warrant removal is legally valid but he doesn't think that way himselfâsee the last link.
Was Napolitano going solely on speculation about Romney or was he just maybe a bit more educated, experienced and informed than you? IIRC you and sird's "some doubts" about Romney reject his integrity on impeachment/removal out of hand and state without much evidence that Romney was just being spiteful towards Trump.
I'm done here. From what I can tell your arguments about Romney and impeachment have little to no substance.
Do you have any proof that he didn't? It is called opinion. Prove me wrong.
1. YOU made the original assertion about Romney's motivations. It's up to you to provide some evidence to support your claim. Or you can just admit that you don't have any evidence. I can't say that tossing out unsupported opinions is much of a hobby.
2. I pointed out that Romney's vote to remove Trump from office was not going to help Romney's political career and goals, especially if he tries to attract popular support outside of Utah for something like another presidential campaign. You apparently didn't follow my thinking that Romney likely didn't vote only to satisfy his supposed grudge against Trump since that vote has as expected isolated Romney within the GOP and possibly derailed his political career. That's a high price to pay if you're just grinding an axe.
3. Let's assume that Romney did vote against Trump only to satisfy his supposed grudge against Trump. What practical good does that do for Romney? What harm does that to Trump? Nothing.
4. Romney is not a dumb man. He has JD and an MBA from Harvard. He has considerable experience dealing with the law and legal situations as a US Senator and Governor of MA. Given his legal training and experience as well as the potentially serious political consequences to his career created by voting against Trump, I feel confident that Mitt considered the evidence against Trump quite well before deciding. Trump was caught red-handed committing impeachable offenses. The Democrats pushed impeachment despite knowing they would fail because they believed that they had to take a public stand against Trump's actions. Personally, I think they might have been better off just censuring Trump but it's too early too tell how the impeachment trial will play in the general election.
Everything you just posted above is just your speculation based upon your own observations.
Either you take Romney at his word and believe him or you don't. The only proof that you are right is to take Romney at his word. And that you are required to trust Romney completely. A risky venture when dealing with a politician ...
I can only conclude that you believe him 100% whereas sird and myself both have some doubts and have expressed the reasons for having these doubts. Same as you have expressed the reasons for you believing Romney. Such is the court of public perception.
Do you have any proof that he didn't? It is called opinion. Prove me wrong.
1. YOU made the original assertion about Romney's motivations. It's up to you to provide some evidence to support your claim. Or you can just admit that you don't have any evidence. I can't say that tossing out unsupported opinions is much of a hobby.
2. I pointed out that Romney's vote to remove Trump from office was not going to help Romney's political career and goals, especially if he tries to attract popular support outside of Utah for something like another presidential campaign. You apparently didn't follow my thinking that Romney likely didn't vote only to satisfy his supposed grudge against Trump since that vote has as expected isolated Romney within the GOP and possibly derailed his political career. That's a high price to pay if you're just grinding an axe.
3. Let's assume that Romney did vote against Trump only to satisfy his supposed grudge against Trump. What practical good does that do for Romney? What harm does that to Trump? Nothing.
4. Romney is not a dumb man. He has JD and an MBA from Harvard. He has considerable experience dealing with the law and legal situations as a US Senator and Governor of MA. Given his legal training and experience as well as the potentially serious political consequences to his career created by voting against Trump, I feel confident that Mitt considered the evidence against Trump quite well before deciding.
Trump was caught red-handed committing impeachable offenses. The Democrats pushed impeachment despite knowing they would fail because they believed that they had to take a public stand against Trump's actions. Personally, I think they might have been better off just censuring Trump but it's too early too tell how the impeachment trial will play in the general election.
Do you have any proof that he didn't? It is called opinion. Prove me wrong.
An opinion based on adolescent vindictiveness. Right in line with Trump's shtick. What really blows is that many of Trump's defenders actually believe that EVERYBODY ELSE is as petulant, vengeful, petty and self-absorbed as Trump.
Mitto was the very image of the dignified Republican, corporate friend, faith-based, etc. Not a fan of his, but I sensed it was a very personal moment for him and his faith. He is being crucified by his own party, the party he was once a Presidential candidate for ... and may have been again someday. But this sealed his political fate. The calcified hard right allows no dissenters. Retribution will be swift and hard. This is not grace. This is not 'moving forward for the good of the nation.' This is junior high, mean-girl moves.
As for Romney: do you have any proof that he voted against Trump merely because he had a personal axe to grind? He likely still has presidential ambitions but his vote runs counter to those aspirations.
Do you have any proof that he didn't? It is called opinion. Prove me wrong.
Not at all. Our founding fathers wisely made the litmus test for impeachment ambiguous and subjective to prevent the very serious process of removing a sitting President a rare and break only when needed type of scenario foreseeing the possible partisan divide of our system. Therefore the alleged offense has to be blatant enough to move enough representatives to vote against their party and constituency in removing their President or in this case their choice off of the ballot in the next election ergo there must be extreme passion and concern for said representatives to go against their party and constituents in the vote. It must be an extraordinary circumstance eliciting extraordinary passion to make this move. My only point regarding Romney is why he was the only one so moved to do so. Were it someone else like say Lamar Alexander, I would agree with you in the adulation because he truly does not have an axe to grind and has a history of fair mindedness and integrity. Mittens not only does not have that, but he has a personal history and ax to grind with Trump therefore in my opinion Mr. Romney, as Dylan famously said to his audience in his first electric gig in Europe "I don't believe you." You do believe him and praise him for his decision, I think he is a petty and smarmy politician. That is really all it is regarding Romney. As far as the general notion of impeachment, I think Trump did exactly what he did, but in my opinion it is not an impeachable offense any more than banging an intern in the oval and lying about it under oath afterwards. Inappropriate and illegal? Sure, enough so to remove a sitting, very popular and up for re election President? No. You can disagree and that is fine, that is the way the founding fathers intended.
Nah, doesn't pass muster, buster. 1. Requesting assistance from a foreign government to INVESTIGATE a 'potential' political opponent. 2. A Nepotism Administration insists on investigating the Son of a former Vice President â hypocrisy at its finest. 3. Administration WITHOLDING documents. 4. Administration BLOCKING Witness Testimony 5. Senate Leader Co-Ordinated with WH regarding trial.
Genital grabbing, porn star payoffs, unqualified appointments for cabinet, destroying government departments from within, Going limp in front of Putin in Helsinki, Constant attacks, Adolescent name calling, Magic Marker Meaty-urologist, profiting from maintaining businesses that have had secret service, foreign dignitaries, friends and golfing at Mar-a-lago utilized at U.S. taxpayer expense.
Yes. I strongly disagree.
I may be wrong, but at some point I am pretty sure Lazy will address this and he is so much smarter than me so I hope he does.
You are really good at name calling, but I am pretty sure almost all of that stuff has nothing to do with impeachment.
I'm sorry, but have you been on some kind of prolonged vacation? Isabeau's points 1-5 contain the nutshell of the grounds for impeachment. Obstruction of Congress is an impeachable offense—it was one of the charges leveled at Nixon. Asking/blackmailing/bribing a foreign power for assistance with an an election is an impeachable offense. The very fact that Trump should have well understood that the claims of the Bidens' bad practices in Ukraine were false—Trump was told as much often enough—but still promoted those groundless charges further magnifies the corrupt nature of Trump's project.
"Therefore the alleged offense has to be blatant enough to move enough representatives to vote against their party and constituency in removing their President or in this case their choice off of the ballot in the next election ergo there must be extreme passion and concern for said representatives to go against their party and constituents in the vote."
That happened to Nixon once the White House tapes were made public. He also faced removal from office because the economy was faltering and the country was still angry about the deceptions surrounding the Vietnam War as revealed by the recently published Pentagon Papers. Trump did not have those problems.
Here are some other reasons Nixon faced tougher sledding than Trump. The big reason in my mind was Fox News which has turned into a propaganda machine for Trump. Nixon didn't have a big enough ally in the media to spin the Watergate coverup.
"Inappropriate and illegal? Sure, enough so to remove a sitting, very popular and up for re election President? No."
Your excerpted statement captures some of the political nature of impeachment. Trump's offenses were blatant enough that Republicans could have and should have removed him but those Republicans did not feel enough pressure from their constituents to remove him. Trump's offenses cleared the Constitutional bar for removal but popular Republican support for him didn't want it. The consequences of voting against a president with mid-90% approval rating among Republicans would have been politically fatal.
Days before he resigned, a Gallup poll found that only 31 percent of Republicans thought Nixon should no longer be president. And some of those supporters deeply resented their representatives for their role in ousting Nixon, which may even have contributed to the Democratic landslide in the 1974 midterm elections.
As for Romney: do you have any proof that he voted against Trump merely because he had a personal axe to grind? He likely still has presidential ambitions but his vote runs counter to those aspirations.
Not at all. Our founding fathers wisely made the litmus test for impeachment ambiguous and subjective to prevent the very serious process of removing a sitting President a rare and break only when needed type of scenario foreseeing the possible partisan divide of our system. Therefore the alleged offense has to be blatant enough to move enough representatives to vote against their party and constituency in removing their President or in this case their choice off of the ballot in the next election ergo there must be extreme passion and concern for said representatives to go against their party and constituents in the vote. It must be an extraordinary circumstance eliciting extraordinary passion to make this move. My only point regarding Romney is why he was the only one so moved to do so. Were it someone else like say Lamar Alexander, I would agree with you in the adulation because he truly does not have an axe to grind and has a history of fair mindedness and integrity. Mittens not only does not have that, but he has a personal history and ax to grind with Trump therefore in my opinion Mr. Romney, as Dylan famously said to his audience in his first electric gig in Europe "I don't believe you." You do believe him and praise him for his decision, I think he is a petty and smarmy politician. That is really all it is regarding Romney. As far as the general notion of impeachment, I think Trump did exactly what he did, but in my opinion it is not an impeachable offense any more than banging an intern in the oval and lying about it under oath afterwards. Inappropriate and illegal? Sure, enough so to remove a sitting, very popular and up for re election President? No. You can disagree and that is fine, that is the way the founding fathers intended.
Nah, doesn't pass muster, buster. 1. Requesting assistance from a foreign government to INVESTIGATE a 'potential' political opponent. 2. A Nepotism Administration insists on investigating the Son of a former Vice President â hypocrisy at its finest. 3. Administration WITHOLDING documents. 4. Administration BLOCKING Witness Testimony 5. Senate Leader Co-Ordinated with WH regarding trial.
Genital grabbing, porn star payoffs, unqualified appointments for cabinet, destroying government departments from within, Going limp in front of Putin in Helsinki, Constant attacks, Adolescent name calling, Magic Marker Meaty-urologist, profiting from maintaining businesses that have had secret service, foreign dignitaries, friends and golfing at Mar-a-lago utilized at U.S. taxpayer expense.
Yes. I strongly disagree.
I may be wrong, but at some point I am pretty sure Lazy will address this and he is so much smarter than me so I hope he does.
You are really good at name calling, but I am pretty sure almost all of that stuff has nothing to do with impeachment.
Isn't it fair to have one? I'm not trying to curb or intimidate anyone into MY way of thinking, but the misogyny and racism is a thread throughout Trump's followers - Different levels, yes, but there nonetheless. His base way too often seek to suppress women, people of color and lgbtq. These folks thrive on misinformation, denying what's in front of their eyes, distraction and an unyielding need for an authoritarian.
You find it easy to minimize the dangers here? Its easy to dismiss a threat when you're not the target.
That's alright we all have a little bigotry in us, I know I do. That is not a derogatory statement at all either just because it is bigotry it doesn't mean it is not true there are a lot of his followers that do indeed fit that description. But as in all bigotry, we have to remember that there are many more people in these groups we put in boxes that do not fit our perceptions of them. I struggle with this myself. I always have to keep in mind that most liberals are well meaning and our differences are only in our methods of solutions, not because it is good vs. evil which is preposterous. We should all do better to keep our conversations in this context.
2. Most Republican senators did not dispute the facts but made the dubious claim that Trump's behavior did not warrant removal from office. Their stance was a foregone conclusion. If Trump wiretapped his Democratic opposition and was caught on tape ordering a cover-up as Nixon did, today's GOP Senators would not vote to remove him. If Trump clearly committed felonies, today's GOP Senators would not vote to remove him.
Republicans in Congress would never vote to impeach and remove Trump as long as the economy is doing well and their voters liked Trump. Unfortunately those Republicans took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to blindly follow opinion polls.
"Impeachment is serious business and should not be used just because the President was mean to you."
If you think that's was the driving motivation for the Democrats' actions then with all due respect your grasp of the facts and the purpose of impeachment is quite shallow.
Not at all. Our founding fathers wisely made the litmus test for impeachment ambiguous and subjective to prevent the very serious process of removing a sitting President a rare and break only when needed type of scenario foreseeing the possible partisan divide of our system. Therefore the alleged offense has to be blatant enough to move enough representatives to vote against their party and constituency in removing their President or in this case their choice off of the ballot in the next election ergo there must be extreme passion and concern for said representatives to go against their party and constituents in the vote. It must be an extraordinary circumstance eliciting extraordinary passion to make this move. My only point regarding Romney is why he was the only one so moved to do so. Were it someone else like say Lamar Alexander, I would agree with you in the adulation because he truly does not have an axe to grind and has a history of fair mindedness and integrity. Mittens not only does not have that, but he has a personal history and ax to grind with Trump therefore in my opinion Mr. Romney, as Dylan famously said to his audience in his first electric gig in Europe "I don't believe you." You do believe him and praise him for his decision, I think he is a petty and smarmy politician. That is really all it is regarding Romney. As far as the general notion of impeachment, I think Trump did exactly what he did, but in my opinion it is not an impeachable offense any more than banging an intern in the oval and lying about it under oath afterwards. Inappropriate and illegal? Sure, enough so to remove a sitting, very popular and up for re election President? No. You can disagree and that is fine, that is the way the founding fathers intended.
Nah, doesn't pass muster, buster. 1. Requesting assistance from a foreign government to INVESTIGATE a 'potential' political opponent. 2. A Nepotism Administration insists on investigating the Son of a former Vice President â hypocrisy at its finest. 3. Administration WITHOLDING documents. 4. Administration BLOCKING Witness Testimony 5. Senate Leader Co-Ordinated with WH regarding trial.
Genital grabbing, porn star payoffs, unqualified appointments for cabinet, destroying government departments from within, Going limp in front of Putin in Helsinki, Constant attacks, Adolescent name calling, Magic Marker Meaty-urologist, profiting from maintaining businesses that have had secret service, foreign dignitaries, friends and golfing at Mar-a-lago utilized at U.S. taxpayer expense.
...amazed you don't see how your fear of change in society is voting for more of a screw ... of you.
As long as others are getting screwed even more, he'll take one for the team.
Misery loves company. If they can 'own' the libs somehow that gets back at every woman that said no to a date, the jobs that abandoned them, the sight of an interracial or gay couple and people of color acting like they have the same freedoms as they do. Its an ancient patriarchal tactic of blaming the 'other,' anyone who isn't. just. like. them.
Howling and leaving claw marks as they are dragged into modernity. Same thing happened with Cro-magnon vs Neanderthal. Few sentient women will mate with them. Evolution is our friend.
Wow. You sound like the mirror image of Kurtster.
Isn't it fair to have one? I'm not trying to curb or intimidate anyone into MY way of thinking, but the misogyny and racism is a thread throughout Trump's followers - Different levels, yes, but there nonetheless. His base way too often seek to suppress women, people of color and lgbtq. These folks thrive on misinformation, denying what's in front of their eyes, distraction and an unyielding need for an authoritarian.
You find it easy to minimize the dangers here? Its easy to dismiss a threat when you're not the target.
Basically what you are saying is that Romney is the only Republican US senator with integrity and patriotism. Pretty extraordinary. Who knows maybe a spot on Rushmore is in order. Whoda thunk it.
Basically what you are saying is that Romney is completely lacking in integrity and extraordinarily petty, so much so that he voted to convict Trump even though it will bring a torrent of abuse upon him just to even â in Romneyâs mind â some personal score with Trump. Pretty stupid, right? He could have just voted with the rest of the Republicans and saved himself a lot of abuse. Would he then have been one of the few Republicans you said in an earlier post may have voted out of their legitimate belief that Trump did nothing deserving of impeachment or would he have fallen in, in your eyes , with the vast majority of Republicans who you say just voted their own partisan, self-interest? And you said earlier only a few Democrats may have voted on some principle but the rest â like the Republicans â voted only in their partisan self-interest? So, in your view, almost all of the Senators, on both sides of the aisle, lacked integrity and patriotism? But Romney was the worst?
Your earlier post:
âLook, there may have been some Democrats who truly believed what Trump did was an impeachable offense and voted with their conscience and there may be a few Republicans who really thought that Trump did not do anything wrong. Imo they would both be wrong, but at least they were voting with the correct intentions. However most were just doing whatever had the best chance of retaining or gaining power and control because that is what all of this bull hockey is really about.â
Taking up the implied logic of your last sentence in the bolded section, sirdroseph, why would Democratic Senators and Congressmen vote for the impeachment and removal of Trump when they knew that Republican Senators would keep Trump in office anyway? If you answer that those Democratic politicians were voting against Trump only because they wanted to retain the support of their constituents who wanted Trump impeached and removed, isn't it also possible that those Democratic politicians felt obliged to vote in line with the majority of their constituents, the majority who wanted Trump out of office?
Absolutely. That is the way the system is designed and it worked because they did not make their case to the Senate and the American people enough to force the Republicans to go against their constituency. Impeachment is serious business and should not be used just because the President was mean to you.
The system did not work because
1. Trump committed impeachable offenses
2. Most Republican senators did not dispute the facts but made the dubious claim that Trump's behavior did not warrant removal from office. Their stance was a foregone conclusion. If Trump wiretapped his Democratic opposition and was caught on tape ordering a cover-up as Nixon did, today's GOP Senators would not vote to remove him. If Trump clearly committed felonies, today's GOP Senators would not vote to remove him.
Republicans in Congress would never vote to impeach and remove Trump as long as the economy is doing well and their voters liked Trump. Unfortunately those Republicans took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to blindly follow opinion polls.
"Impeachment is serious business and should not be used just because the President was mean to you."
If you think that's was the driving motivation for the Democrats' actions then with all due respect your grasp of the facts and the purpose of impeachment is quite shallow.
...amazed you don't see how your fear of change in society is voting for more of a screw ... of you.
As long as others are getting screwed even more, he'll take one for the team.
Misery loves company. If they can 'own' the libs somehow that gets back at every woman that said no to a date, the jobs that abandoned them, the sight of an interracial or gay couple and people of color acting like they have the same freedoms as they do. Its an ancient patriarchal tactic of blaming the 'other,' anyone who isn't. just. like. them.
Howling and leaving claw marks as they are dragged into modernity. Same thing happened with Cro-magnon vs Neanderthal. Few sentient women will mate with them. Evolution is our friend.
Basically what you are saying is that Romney is the only Republican US senator with integrity and patriotism. Pretty extraordinary. Who knows maybe a spot on Rushmore is in order. Whoda thunk it.
Basically what you are saying is that Romney is completely lacking in integrity and extraordinarily petty, so much so that he voted to convict Trump even though it will bring a torrent of abuse upon him just to even â in Romneyâs mind â some personal score with Trump. Pretty stupid, right? He could have just voted with the rest of the Republicans and saved himself a lot of abuse. Would he then have been one of the few Republicans you said in an earlier post may have voted out of their legitimate belief that Trump did nothing deserving of impeachment or would he have fallen in, in your eyes , with the vast majority of Republicans who you say just voted their own partisan, self-interest? And you said earlier only a few Democrats may have voted on some principle but the rest â like the Republicans â voted only in their partisan self-interest? So, in your view, almost all of the Senators, on both sides of the aisle, lacked integrity and patriotism? But Romney was the worst?
Your earlier post:
âLook, there may have been some Democrats who truly believed what Trump did was an impeachable offense and voted with their conscience and there may be a few Republicans who really thought that Trump did not do anything wrong. Imo they would both be wrong, but at least they were voting with the correct intentions. However most were just doing whatever had the best chance of retaining or gaining power and control because that is what all of this bull hockey is really about.â
Taking up the implied logic of your last sentence in the bolded section, sirdroseph, why would Democratic Senators and Congressmen vote for the impeachment and removal of Trump when they knew that Republican Senators would keep Trump in office anyway? If you answer that those Democratic politicians were voting against Trump only because they wanted to retain the support of their constituents who wanted Trump impeached and removed, isn't it also possible that those Democratic politicians felt obliged to vote in line with the majority of their constituents, the majority who wanted Trump out of office?
Absolutely. That is the way the system is designed and it worked because they did not make their case to the Senate and the American people enough to force the Republicans to go against their constituency. Impeachment is serious business and should not be used just because the President was mean to you.
You're half right. Romney was not necessarily the worst, but he is in the same boat with just with a different take. I am not prepared to give adulation to any of them as you do Romney. But yes almost all of the Senators on both sides of the aisle do indeed lack integrity and true patriotism.
I know, I know . . . A pox on all their houses.
Not âtrue patriotsâ like you and I and other average Joes and Janes.
A pox on everyoneâs houses!
Not at all. Our founding fathers wisely made the litmus test for impeachment ambiguous and subjective to prevent the very serious process of removing a sitting President a rare and break only when needed type of scenario foreseeing the possible partisan divide of our system. Therefore the alleged offense has to be blatant enough to move enough representatives to vote against their party and constituency in removing their President or in this case their choice off of the ballot in the next election ergo there must be extreme passion and concern for said representatives to go against their party and constituents in the vote. It must be an extraordinary circumstance eliciting extraordinary passion to make this move. My only point regarding Romney is why he was the only one so moved to do so. Were it someone else like say Lamar Alexander, I would agree with you in the adulation because he truly does not have an axe to grind and has a history of fair mindedness and integrity. Mittens not only does not have that, but he has a personal history and ax to grind with Trump therefore in my opinion Mr. Romney, as Dylan famously said to his audience in his first electric gig in Europe "I don't believe you." You do believe him and praise him for his decision, I think he is a petty and smarmy politician. That is really all it is regarding Romney. As far as the general notion of impeachment, I think Trump did exactly what he did, but in my opinion it is not an impeachable offense any more than banging an intern in the oval and lying about it under oath afterwards. Inappropriate and illegal? Sure, enough so to remove a sitting, very popular and up for re election President? No. You can disagree and that is fine, that is the way the founding fathers intended.
Nah. Just disagree. Dems aren't coming for all guns; dems like to hunt too. Funny thing though, we also enjoy Fishing, a sport more and more endangered by overfishing, natural disasters and increase in pollutants.
Jus saying your fearless tweeterleader has gutted many headwaters regulation much to the happiness of factories, farmers and agri-businesses.
I used to like oysters. I used to like clean water. I used to like not having a President's unqualified family members appointed to his administration.
The Faux Spews Fish Hook of "they're coming for all yer guns, lesbians will be sleeping on your doorstep and immigrants are a comin' for yer jobs ..." while Agolf plays meaty-urologist with a magic marker ... is brainwashing by the billionaires. We are all amazed you don't see how your fear of change in society is voting for more of a screw of you. Next up on McConnell's wet dream: Cutting social security and medicare.
FWIW, Mitt Romney has shown his deep commitment to the Mormon church in the past. This 2012 WaPo piece details his actions as the chief Mormon authority in the Boston area in the 80s. Yet the piece also somewhat supports kurtster's suspicion of Romney: Mitt worked with the leader of the area's Spanish-speaking Mormon congregation to provide church funds to pay for lawyers assisting illegal immigrant Mormons. That's in stark contrast to his 2012 primary promises to enact policies that would promote "self-deportation" of illegal immigrants.
AFAICT though Romney has backed up his faith-oriented talk with a great deal of good works and actions. If you want sanctimoniousness, check out Orrin Hatch.
...amazed you don't see how your fear of change in society is voting for more of a screw ... of you.
As long as others are getting screwed even more, he'll take one for the team.
Misery loves company. If they can 'own' the libs somehow that gets back at every woman that said no to a date, the jobs that abandoned them, the sight of an interracial or gay couple and people of color acting like they have the same freedoms as they do. Its an ancient patriarchal tactic of blaming the 'other,' anyone who isn't. just. like. them.
Howling and leaving claw marks as they are dragged into modernity. Same thing happened with Cro-magnon vs Neanderthal. Few sentient women will mate with them. Evolution is our friend.
