[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Graphs, Charts & Maps - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 31, 2020 - 4:40pm
 
What do you snack on? - jahgirl8 - Mar 31, 2020 - 4:30pm
 
Regarding dogs - jahgirl8 - Mar 31, 2020 - 4:27pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - laozilover - Mar 31, 2020 - 4:25pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - buddy - Mar 31, 2020 - 4:04pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - jahgirl8 - Mar 31, 2020 - 4:04pm
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - Mar 31, 2020 - 4:04pm
 
Economix - kurtster - Mar 31, 2020 - 4:02pm
 
Trump Lies - buddy - Mar 31, 2020 - 4:01pm
 
The Obituary Page - Steely_D - Mar 31, 2020 - 3:48pm
 
I Just Saw . . . - oldviolin - Mar 31, 2020 - 3:35pm
 
Automotive Lust - jahgirl8 - Mar 31, 2020 - 3:26pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Mar 31, 2020 - 2:39pm
 
A designers worst nightmare - jahgirl8 - Mar 31, 2020 - 2:31pm
 
Tech & Science - haresfur - Mar 31, 2020 - 2:28pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Mar 31, 2020 - 2:26pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Mar 31, 2020 - 2:25pm
 
Small-town news - Proclivities - Mar 31, 2020 - 1:23pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - Mar 31, 2020 - 12:18pm
 
Türkiye - mcan543 - Mar 31, 2020 - 10:50am
 
Things You Thought Today - sirdroseph - Mar 31, 2020 - 4:56am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - kurtster - Mar 30, 2020 - 9:30pm
 
Cleveland Stuff - kurtster - Mar 30, 2020 - 6:59pm
 
Name My Band - Isabeau - Mar 30, 2020 - 5:41pm
 
John Prine - Paradise - Peabody Energy on verge of Ch... - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 30, 2020 - 3:27pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Mar 30, 2020 - 1:38pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Mar 30, 2020 - 12:17pm
 
Last gas price paid? - westslope - Mar 30, 2020 - 11:35am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Mar 30, 2020 - 10:18am
 
Poetry Forum - oldviolin - Mar 30, 2020 - 9:56am
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Mar 30, 2020 - 9:24am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - BlueHeronDruid - Mar 29, 2020 - 11:38pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Mar 29, 2020 - 7:52pm
 
Cooking for Friends.... - oldviolin - Mar 29, 2020 - 7:06pm
 
Friends of Bill W? - buddy - Mar 29, 2020 - 5:43pm
 
• • •  What's For Dinner ? • • •  - Antigone - Mar 29, 2020 - 5:08pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - GeneP59 - Mar 29, 2020 - 4:59pm
 
Joe Biden - Steely_D - Mar 29, 2020 - 3:01pm
 
Canada - haresfur - Mar 29, 2020 - 2:57pm
 
Acoustic Guitar - R_P - Mar 29, 2020 - 1:29pm
 
Recommended documentaries - Ohmsen - Mar 29, 2020 - 12:11pm
 
More reggae, less Marley please - Ohmsen - Mar 29, 2020 - 11:49am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Mar 29, 2020 - 9:47am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Mar 29, 2020 - 7:16am
 
Nice playlist now.. - spotr - Mar 28, 2020 - 6:30pm
 
Flower Pictures - kcar - Mar 28, 2020 - 12:22pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - triskele - Mar 28, 2020 - 11:49am
 
how do you feel right now? - Coaxial - Mar 28, 2020 - 11:03am
 
Baseball, anyone? - GeneP59 - Mar 28, 2020 - 10:51am
 
Airplay - jbuhl - Mar 28, 2020 - 9:47am
 
Favorite Quotes - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2020 - 8:22am
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2020 - 8:17am
 
What Did You See Today? - Paul_Andreev - Mar 28, 2020 - 2:52am
 
Funny Videos - kcar - Mar 27, 2020 - 4:28pm
 
Counting with Pictures - ndg - Mar 27, 2020 - 1:24pm
 
songs that ROCK! - Lazy8 - Mar 27, 2020 - 10:29am
 
Change mix channel on RP app - BillG - Mar 27, 2020 - 7:56am
 
Rhetorical questions - oldviolin - Mar 26, 2020 - 10:38pm
 
What are you listening to now? - Steely_D - Mar 26, 2020 - 2:32pm
 
Quick! I need a chicken... - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 26, 2020 - 1:26pm
 
Help!!!!!!!! - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 26, 2020 - 1:26pm
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 26, 2020 - 10:20am
 
Public Messages in a Private Forum - kurtster - Mar 26, 2020 - 6:49am
 
Music Videos - whatshisname - Mar 25, 2020 - 10:48pm
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - jahgirl8 - Mar 25, 2020 - 5:38pm
 
Democratic Party - jahgirl8 - Mar 25, 2020 - 5:18pm
 
What did you have for dinner? - jahgirl8 - Mar 25, 2020 - 5:14pm
 
THANK YOU GUYS - dawnbland - Mar 25, 2020 - 7:07am
 
Republican Party - Red_Dragon - Mar 24, 2020 - 6:30pm
 
Preferred media player? - gvajda - Mar 24, 2020 - 4:05pm
 
Get the Quote - oldviolin - Mar 24, 2020 - 11:54am
 
Unresearched Conspiracy Theories - miamizsun - Mar 24, 2020 - 6:17am
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Mar 23, 2020 - 5:12pm
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - westslope - Mar 23, 2020 - 3:16pm
 
Things that make you sick - sirdroseph - Mar 23, 2020 - 2:36am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Impeachment Time: Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 55, 56, 57  Next
Post to this Topic
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 11:15am

Trump's Power Doubles After Absorbing Impeachment Attack
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 11:11am

 rgio wrote:


 kurtster wrote:
If Romney was secure in his faith, one would think it unnecessary to cite it as a justification for acting.

From Tuesdays State of the Union address:

"My administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the constitutional right to pray in public schools," he said. "In America, we don't punish prayer. We don't tear down crosses. We don't ban symbols of faith. We don't muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith, we cherish religion, we lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the glory of God."

If the administration believed that, wouldn't they celebrate Mitt's apparent relationship with his creator?  Trump defends the right to practice religion in publicly funded institutions, but if that reflection leads to your not agreeing with him, you are to be punished and ostracized?  

Since you are"bumping" old comments, somewhere here in the past few weeks I asked you if you really trust Trump.  Deep down, you do believe Trump to be an honest, good, solid, religious guy? 
 
Overall, I do trust Trump to be working on the things that I consider important, more than anyone else is working on those things.

Do I think Trump's personal position on religion to be solid ?  I have my doubts.  I did read up on that during the campaign, that he was a follower of Norman Vincent Peale and attended his church.  What I do see Trump doing with religion is more the party platform than anything that he personally believes, but I can only guess and wonder about that.  And the party platform may be consistent with his own beliefs or not.

During the campaign I stated that I thought Trump was not really interested in social issues and would mostly pay lip service to those.  Earlier he had been a pro choice person for example as in it is non of the government's business.  It is a personal choice within reason and medical safety. 

His real priorities would be on economic and national security issues.  The social stuff would be a side show.
rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 9:52am



 kurtster wrote:
If Romney was secure in his faith, one would think it unnecessary to cite it as a justification for acting.

From Tuesdays State of the Union address:

"My administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the constitutional right to pray in public schools," he said. "In America, we don't punish prayer. We don't tear down crosses. We don't ban symbols of faith. We don't muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith, we cherish religion, we lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the glory of God."

If the administration believed that, wouldn't they celebrate Mitt's apparent relationship with his creator?  Trump defends the right to practice religion in publicly funded institutions, but if that reflection leads to your not agreeing with him, you are to be punished and ostracized?  

Since you are"bumping" old comments, somewhere here in the past few weeks I asked you if you really trust Trump.  Deep down, you do believe Trump to be an honest, good, solid, religious guy? 
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 9:49am



 kurtster wrote:

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.

You labeled it; partly why I saw no need to respond. Also because my previous posts already had addressed points you had made about Romney’s motivations and his references to his faith and his sworn oath.

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.

As I said in previous posts, Romney did not reference God or his faith as telling him to vote to convict. Rather, he stated that the sworn oath to be impartial in serving as an impeachment juror was made under God and he was going to honor that oath of impartiality. He then explained why his review of the evidence led him to the conclusion he had reached. I am not religious, so I do not make references to a faith or God, but many people do without being accused of using either as a crutch — which implies weakness of an individual in need of cover. Trump made numerous references to God in his SOTU. Lastly, I do not understand your comment about having his cake and eating it, too.

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.

Irrelevant personal background information.

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.

Much ranting here. I will try to decipher. Sure, Romney is a politician, with all that entails. So are all the other Senators. I would say that there obviously are motivations for these Senators to vote along party lines on controversial issues when the parties’ positions are diametrically opposed. We do not get much more controversial than this impeachment. So the pressure to vote with party would be strong on both sides. Bucking that, as Romney did, subjected him to what I previously predicted would be a torrent of abuse. The condemnations of GOP Senators pale in comparison. Is that counterbalanced by praise Romney is receiving from Democrats? Perhaps, but I do not see it as of equal volume and especially not of equal consequence for him. What he did make clear in his floor speech was he did consider how history would view him because of this vote. So, yes, that is a personal calculation, but don’t we want a Senator to consider how history will view his or her actions?


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.

The Democrats are pointing to Romney’s vote. There is political gain in that, sure, but that does not mean Romney did not vote his conscience and based on impartial deliberation. I have not seen attacks on the personal faiths of GOP Senators. I have seen them attacked as voting party line.

You or someone else cited Romney's overt and apparently genuine sincerity as proof enough of his religious convictions ...

I said he sounded sincere in making the statement from the floor. And I said his reasoning behind his vote to convict made sense to me. I did not say either of those proved his religious bonafides. And, see my earlier part of this post response in which I describe how Romney cited his faith in explaining his determination to honor the oath of impartiality — not as the basis for his vote. An important distinction.

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 ...

This comes up a lot in political debates everywhere. It is a bullshit phrase devoid of relevance.

Now it's your turn, to tell me that I am delusional and hopelessly blinded by my knee jerk partisan ways.

rant off.

 




kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 8:48am

 kurtster wrote:
steeler wrote:


 kurtster wrote:
 steeler wrote:

 I was questioning your saying he traded on being holier than thou.  For example, Romney today spoke about his sworn oath to God in deciding to vote for conviction. Was this him acting holier than thou?  Being politically expedient working only for his own self interest and self promotion?

  
Yes.
 

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.

rant off.
 
*bump*   since you seemed to have missed this.
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 8:39am

John E. Sununu just made this point on Meet The Press (I might be paraphrasing the quote but the gist is accurate): “Just because Mitt Romney voted his conscience does not mean the other Republican Senators did not vote their consciences.”

The reverse , then, also would be true. 

So, again, why is Romney being assailed by Trump, other members of the GOP, and many of his supporters?

A Trump tweet from a short time ago this morning, and this one is mild compared to other condemnations of Romney and Manchin:

“They are really mad at Senator Joe Munchkin in West Virginia. He couldn’t understand the Transcripts. Romney could, but didn’t want to!”

See how he belittles Manchin by calling him “Munchkin.” That’s funny — isn’t it? Authentic! ! Manchin’s sin Was his voting for conviction when Trump apparently thought he would break ranks and vote to acquit Trump. As I said, mild for Trump. Nowhere near the humiliation of having Vindman and his twin brother perp walked out of the White House.
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 8:16am



 sirdroseph wrote:


 steeler wrote:
Getting lost in the debate about Romney’s motivations and trustworthiness is whether his vote for conviction was correct based on the evidence presented and his explanation of how he saw that evidence.

I also am wondering why Trump and his supporters are so enraged by Romney’s vote if it is easily dismissed as just a sore loser trying to get back at Trump. That outrage and the calls for retribution seem to be way over the top. Yet we should be more concerned about Democrats “fawning” over Romney because of that vote?

The vindictiveness of Trump and many of his supporters should be the focus. Romney. Manchin, Schiff, Vindman, Sondland, Yovanovitch . . .
 

Operative words in your whole statement.  The singularity is what will come back to bite you.
 
Yes, which is more alarming or of more consequence: Romney departing from party to cast the lone GOP vote for conviction or Trump calling for retribution against not only Romney but others, like those I named?

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 8:07am



 steeler wrote:
Getting lost in the debate about Romney’s motivations and trustworthiness is whether his vote for conviction was correct based on the evidence presented and his explanation of how he saw that evidence.

I also am wondering why Trump and his supporters are so enraged by Romney’s vote if it is easily dismissed as just a sore loser trying to get back at Trump. That outrage and the calls for retribution seem to be way over the top. Yet we should be more concerned about Democrats “fawning” over Romney because of that vote?

The vindictiveness of Trump and many of his supporters should be the focus. Romney. Manchin, Schiff, Vindman, Sondland, Yovanovitch . . .
 

Operative words in your whole statement.  The singularity is what will come back to bite you.



Obama's war on whistleblowers leaves administration insiders unscathed



Since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, his government has waged a war against  whistleblowers and official leakers.
On his watch, there have been  eight prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act – more than double those under all previous presidents combined.



steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 8:05am



 sirdroseph wrote:


 steeler wrote:
Getting lost in the debate about Romney’s motivations and trustworthiness is whether his vote for conviction was correct based on the evidence presented and his explanation of how he saw that evidence.

I also am wondering why Trump and his supporters are so enraged by Romney’s vote if it is easily dismissed as just a sore loser trying to get back at Trump. That outrage and the calls for retribution seem to be way over the top. Yet we should be more concerned about Democrats “fawning” over Romney because of that vote?
 

More concern?  No.  Concern?  Yes.  Best to reread what I wrote.  This fawning only makes Trump stronger.  Everyone saw the evidence and make their own subjective opinions on what it means to them,  Romney is no different.   I think you underestimate the craving for authenticity which is a powerful driving force in this country right now.   It gives both Sanders and Trump their strength.   I am not talking about truth,  you can be an authentic liar and Trump has that down to a science.
 
See my added paragraph to my post. 

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 8:04am



 steeler wrote:
Getting lost in the debate about Romney’s motivations and trustworthiness is whether his vote for conviction was correct based on the evidence presented and his explanation of how he saw that evidence.

I also am wondering why Trump and his supporters are so enraged by Romney’s vote if it is easily dismissed as just a sore loser trying to get back at Trump. That outrage and the calls for retribution seem to be way over the top. Yet we should be more concerned about Democrats “fawning” over Romney because of that vote?
 

More concern?  No.  Concern?  Yes.  Best to reread what I wrote.  This fawning only makes Trump stronger.  Everyone saw the evidence and make their own subjective opinions on what it means to them,  Romney is no different.   I think you underestimate the craving for authenticity which is a powerful driving force in this country right now.   It gives both Sanders and Trump their strength.   I am not talking about truth,  you can be an authentic liar and Trump has that down to a science.  Romney has rarely been seen in the same room with it.
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 7:58am

Getting lost in the debate about Romney’s motivations and trustworthiness is whether his vote for conviction was correct based on the evidence presented and his explanation of how he saw that evidence.

I also am wondering why Trump and his supporters are so enraged by Romney’s vote if it is easily dismissed as just a sore loser trying to get back at Trump. That outrage and the calls for retribution seem to be way over the top. Yet we should be more concerned about Democrats “fawning” over Romney because of that vote?

The vindictiveness of Trump and many of his supporters should be the focus. Romney. Manchin, Schiff, Vindman, Sondland, Yovanovitch . . .
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 7:18am

 kcar wrote:


 kurtster wrote:
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 speculation—but it's informed speculation based on facts and an attempt at logical thinking.

 
Hmmm, isn't that what you constantly fault me for doing ?  Taking some real facts and applying logic to connect dots as the basis for forming an opinion ?  

Tsk, tsk ...

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 did little or no harm to Trump? 
 
No, I do not dispute these facts.  And these are the basis for your connecting of dots to justify your conclusion / opinion.

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?

 
 
Romney, being just another calculating politician is trying to take advantage of the short memory of the voter who by the time he comes up for re election will have forgotten his vote or that by that time, the facts will have proved him right and that he was the lone one to stand up for principle as a basis for his next political move.

From what I can tell your arguments about Romney and impeachment have little to no substance.
 

So here is one more fact that I will use to support my conclusion, that Romney is not pure of heart or intent and just another smarmy, slimy politician.  And is not to be trusted as you and so many others do to justify your fawning over him.  And evidence of your's and so many other's convenient short memory ...
.
Mitt Romney’s Twitter alter ego

OCTOBER 25, 2019 BY 

“Pierre Delecto” strikes back at Romney critics

If there was ever any doubt that Republican Senator Mitt Romney (at least secretly) identifies as vehemently anti-Trump, the Twitter account under the name “Pierre Delecto” may have put that to rest.

Romney recently admitted he was using the “Delecto” pseudonym on social media. Romney told reporters it was “a way to have a private account to see what’s going on.” (Of course, one doesn’t need a private account to “see what’s going on.” Any Twitter user with an account under their real name can privately read whatever they wish without detection.)
...
Though Romney didn’t publish very frequently on Twitter under his fake name, the content has garnered him some fans among both liberals and anti-Trump Republicans. Romney used “Pierre Delecto” to express pro-Romney and/or anti-Trump sentiments.




I'm done here. 

 
{#Roflol}
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 6:26am



 R_P wrote:
 kcar wrote:
(...) and state without much evidence that Romney was just being spiteful towards Trump.
 
Surely you're not claiming that there could possibly be any other motivation for doing something?
 
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.


And in related news:  

Large Majority of New Hampshire Democrats Prefer Death by Meteor Than to See Trump Win Again






Sixty-four percent of those polled chose ‘a giant meteor strikes the earth, extinguishing all human life’ over the president’s re-election


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.
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 9, 2020 - 6:00am



 Isabeau wrote:


 sirdroseph wrote:

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? 

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Feb 8, 2020 - 9:15pm

 kcar wrote:
(...) and state without much evidence that Romney was just being spiteful towards Trump.
 
Surely you're not claiming that there could possibly be any other motivation for doing something?
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Feb 8, 2020 - 8:15pm



 kurtster wrote:


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 speculation—but 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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...




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 himself—see the last link.


https://thehill.com/homenews/m...


https://www.foxnews.com/opinio...


Also: 


Judge Andrew Napolitano: Romney believes Senate impeachment trial should've been 'real'



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.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 8, 2020 - 6:33pm

 kcar wrote:


 sirdroseph wrote:

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.
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Feb 8, 2020 - 6:02pm



 sirdroseph wrote:

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.

Isabeau

Isabeau Avatar

Location: sou' tex
Gender: Female


Posted: Feb 8, 2020 - 3:25pm



 sirdroseph wrote:

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.  


sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 8, 2020 - 4:08am

 kcar wrote:
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. 
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 55, 56, 57  Next