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 just gutted last week, Obama's clean headwater regulations, much to the happiness of factories, farmers and agri-businesses. They can now dump runoff, fertilizers and toxins into wetlands, streams and other places that lead into other water sources ... Cuppa Flint, Michigan anyone?
I used to like oysters. I used to be able to trust Romaine lettuce. 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.
So you were questioning his faith. Trump did that, too, today at the National Prayer Conference, denouncing him for using religion as a crutch.
Ah, I see that you have since edited your post while I was composing this reply, no matter ...
Warning ... rant on.
If you want to put it that way.
However, I see it more, as being a politician, trying to have his cake and eat it, too. If Romney was secure in his faith, one would think it unnecessary to cite it as a justification for acting. Senator Collins cited her conscience and stopped at that. So Trump is correct. He did use his faith as a crutch as I see it.
Based upon my limited religious indoctrination up to 7th grade that was conducted at Thousand Oaks Baptist Church in Berkeley, California which is across the street from Thousand Oaks Elementary School that I attended from K to 3, the same school which the terrified little girl Kamala Harris was forced to go to when the democrats foisted busing upon the city, I'll attempt to pose this metaphor.
Romney, being the politician that he first and foremost is, wants to be the hero, the holiest of the holy and shame everybody else with a tactic from the progressive left with his use of blatant virtue signaling. Romney was attempting to do what the wise old King Solomon wisely refrained from doing ... cut the baby in half. In doing so, he sneeringly and self righteously raised himself above everyone else.
And the left is also trying to use Romney's "courageous and selfless act"™ to shame all the repubs in the same process, challenging their personal faith as nothing more than hollow, hypocritical and phony.
You or someone else cited Romney's overt and apparently genuine sincerity as proof enough of his religious convictions ...
I'll up the Groucho quote with this one ...
Politics is show business for ugly people. Paul Begala
imho, you've been inside the Beltway too long ...
Now it's your turn, to tell me that I am delusional and hopelessly blinded by my knee jerk partisan ways.
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?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 6, 2020 - 12:36pm
sirdroseph wrote:
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.
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 — in Romney’s mind — 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 — like the Republicans — 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:
“Look, 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.”
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.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 6, 2020 - 12:23pm
sirdroseph wrote:
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
I saw Romnet’s speech from the floor live (happenstance) and watched it again later. I also have read it a few times. If he was faking it, he is a damn good actor or charlatan, or both. His reasoning made sense to me. His emotions seemed real. I was moved (and most of the time I am a card-carrying cynic). Now he did reference the possibility of a “rebuke” of history, so it would seem he was contemplating how his vote would be viewed through that lens. Perhaps securing his place in history was motivating him, but that would be an odd criticism in this context. In the shorter term, we know this vote is going to bring a torrential shitstorm down upon him. Difficult for me to believe he is willing to subject himself to that just to get back at Trump in a personal feud. I see him here as being more patriotic than petty.
“In politics, sincerity is everything. Once you can fake that, you've got it made.” – Groucho Marx.
I saw Romnetâs speech from the floor live (happenstance) and watched it again later. I also have read it a few times. If he was faking it, he is a damn good actor or charlatan, or both. His reasoning made sense to me. His emotions seemed real. I was moved (and most of the time I am a card-carrying cynic). Now he did reference the possibility of a ârebukeâ of history, so it would seem he was contemplating how his vote would be viewed through that lens. Perhaps securing his place in history was motivating him, but that would be an odd criticism in this context. In the shorter term, we know this vote is going to bring a torrential shitstorm down upon him. Difficult for me to believe he is willing to subject himself to that just to get back at Trump in a personal feud. I see him here as being more patriotic than petty.
âIn politics, sincerity is everything. Once you can fake that, you've got it made.â â Groucho Marx.
I saw Romnet’s speech from the floor live (happenstance) and watched it again later. I also have read it a few times. If he was faking it, he is a damn good actor or charlatan, or both. His reasoning made sense to me. His emotions seemed real. I was moved (and most of the time I am a card-carrying cynic). Now he did reference the possibility of a “rebuke” of history, so it would seem he was contemplating how his vote would be viewed through that lens. Perhaps securing his place in history was motivating him, but that would be an odd criticism in this context. In the shorter term, we know this vote is going to bring a torrential shitstorm down upon him. Difficult for me to believe he is willing to subject himself to that just to get back at Trump in a personal feud. I see him here as being more patriotic than petty.
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.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 6, 2020 - 9:29am
I saw Romnetâs speech from the floor live (happenstance) and watched it again later. I also have read it a few times. If he was faking it, he is a damn good actor or charlatan, or both. His reasoning made sense to me. His emotions seemed real. I was moved (and most of the time I am a card-carrying cynic). Now he did reference the possibility of a ârebukeâ of history, so it would seem he was contemplating how his vote would be viewed through that lens. Perhaps securing his place in history was motivating him, but that would be an odd criticism in this context. In the shorter term, we know this vote is going to bring a torrential shitstorm down upon him. Difficult for me to believe he is willing to subject himself to that just to get back at Trump in a personal feud. I see him here as being more patriotic than petty.
RE. Islander , the first part on partisanship...right, that's the point. So being an opinion/partisan, it should pass some litmus test to proceed. Is there a case from this one incident to get the GOP and the public in general behind impeachment? Can you take his prior behavior into consideration? With that said, and considering as we know from the start, the GOP were not likely to agree, was going through the process anyway the right thing? And if it was, did the democrats do it correctly, or convincingly?
As an aside, I think the defense that this should be left to the voters is a bit week...harks back to the Mcconnell / Garland trick.
I was never a huge fan of Romney, but you can't possibly watch his speech yesterday and believe he didn't struggle with the decision. He was nervous. He was emotional. It wasn't political, it was personal. He mentioned his kids and their children as part of his decision process. He knows how history will explain these times...
Re. Romney, rather than his oath to God or his conscience, shouldnt have been his oath to the constitution that guided him in his decision? That's what Collins (considered a possible yes vote), the senator to the north of him, did. Not being an expert on the subject myself, but I always questioned the constitutional basis for the impeachment. Though like most legal matters, it could be argued one way or the other...meaning, ultimately it was a partisan process.
And there is the issue - it's always opinion, so it will always be partisan. Even the 'expert' interpretations of the constitution will always just be interpretations. The constitution itself was a compromise among men, so it didn't represent anyone's true full opinion.
The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.
Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.
That all rings pretty true to me. And under any number of standards listed here, I see much of trump's behaviors in this and other incidents to be impeachable.
At a base level, his focus exclusively on his base, and his active intentional attempts to 'trigger' or harm his opponents is pretty drastically different and worse than other presidents. Regardless of policy disagreements I think most other presidents have sincerely wanted to help the country as a whole. I don't get that impression from this guy, and that makes him unfit. I don't think it's impeachable by itself, but the emotions that got him there and the unwillingness to check him for actions that do seem to be impeachable and is definitely worthy of rebuke and restraint worry me. Our biggest threats are still outside, but we have opened the door and done much of their work for them.
Yes, I usually get a little uneasy when someone say "God told them" to do something instead of saying "my conscience" or something. Whatever...
So now Republicans are attacking one of the more religious guys on their team? As a recovering Republican and Catholic, I'm still amazed at the fluidity shown by the "religious" right. People defending Trump willingly mention Romney and Trump in the same sentence with religion? Welcome to Bizzaro world.
I was never a huge fan of Romney, but you can't possibly watch his speech yesterday and believe he didn't struggle with the decision. He was nervous. He was emotional. It wasn't political, it was personal. He mentioned his kids and their children as part of his decision process. He knows how history will explain these times...
, the first part on partisanship...right, that's the point. So being an opinion/partisan, it should pass some litmus test to proceed. Is there a case from this one incident to get the GOP and the public in general behind impeachment? Can you take his prior behavior into consideration? With that said, and considering as we know from the start, the GOP were not likely to agree, was going through the process anyway the right thing? And if it was, did the democrats do it correctly, or convincingly? 