So we’re not discussing Romney?

[carlimac]

Just wondering...

[NeuroTypical]

I liked him when he was brought in to restore honor to the corruption-scandal-ridden SLC olympics.

I was ok with him as Gov of Massachusets, because that gig basically forces you to reach far across the aisle to get anything done.

I voted for him in 2012 against Obama, because he is who the Republicans ran against Obama.

Then his track record started confusing me.  I forget, did he take his stance against Trump first, or did he start out supporting him and then switch.  Did I watch that youtube video of him praising Trump before or after I watched that other video of him bashing Trump?

Then this:

Politics mean you work with people with which you disagree.

Now his sole republican vote in the Senate against removing Trump.  I've lost any sense of a coherent narrative from Romney, and pretty much anything he says or does doesn't surprise me.  Whatever he says his principles are, I take with a grain of salt.

I lost any "yay, a Mormon gaining national attention in federal politics" for him a lot of years ago.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by NeuroTypical

[carlimac]

I really liked him but knew he wouldn’t win POTUS when I went to vote.Well I didn’t “know” but had a strong impression.  It was good for him to run but it wouldn’t have been good for the church if he were president. 

Since then I’ve been sort of “meh” about his political moves. (I do like his wife though. She’s doing awesome things in the realm of neuro research and healthcare.) Go Ann!

In the last 24-48 hours there has been a huge flip flop among my friends. Those who voted for him for senate now despise him. Those who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for him are now practically drooling at his feet. It’s a little sickening. And they were the ones criticizing him for flip-flopping. 🤔

My uneducated observation is that he simply saw things differently than the rest of the clan. Came to a different conclusion. 

But I can hardly call his one “guilty” vote heroic when he knew it wouldn’t actually oust Trump. His vote didn’t make any difference in the outcome. Would he still have voted guilty if his had been the deciding vote?

 I don’t like to judge. But it kinda looks like he just did this to ingratiate himself with his enemies. I don’t know. He seemed sincere. But it’s no secret he has never liked Trump, has been very vocal about what a scum bag he thinks Trump is. So... was this really such an honorable and brave thing he did? 🤷‍♀️ 

My opinion of him went up a notch but then down two notches as I evaluated the scenario. 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by carlimac

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I admire his courage.   That took courage to break ranks in such a public way. 

[carlimac]

17 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I admire his courage.   That took courage to break ranks in such a public way. 

I'm skeptical, mostly because so many liberal Trump haters are gushing over it. It just doesn't feel right. 

And I'm no Trump lover. He drives me crazy.  If I didn't have to hear his voice, his State of the Union address was great. Our country does seem to be in better shape than it has been for awhile. Got to give him credit for stirring things up.  But his narcissistic, taking credit for everything, schoolboy pouting and constantly flinging insults and  barbs at his enemies are nauseating. 

I'm just not convinced that what he did  with the phone call was impeachable. So Romney's somewhat timid and so very very safe "breaking with ranks" doesn't impress me. He may be burned at the stake so to speak but ironically, it will be by those who voted him in. But it seems his actions assure him  a spot with the "Moral Majority" in the Democratic party. (sarcasm on) so he doesn't have to worry.  For this and a few other things, I'm glad I'm not a Utah resident right now.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

24 minutes ago, carlimac said:

So Romney's somewhat timid and so very very safe "breaking with ranks" doesn't impress me. He may be burned at the stake so to speak but ironically, it will be by those who voted him in. 

Don't you see ate contradicting yourself here?  Taking a step that could get you figuratively burned at the stake is neither timid nor very safe. 

What good is it to him for his former opponents to be temporarily pleased with him?  That not something anyone seeks. 

[anatess2]

56 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I admire his courage.   That took courage to break ranks in such a public way. 

I called this long time ago.

You can admire his courage if you want.  The fact remains - Romney pre-judged this case.  That is, he threw the Constitution out to the window with the Democrats and judge Trump Guilty before proven Innocent.

[carlimac]

26 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Don't you see ate contradicting yourself here?  Taking a step that could get you figuratively burned at the stake is neither timid nor very safe. 

What good is it to him for his former opponents to be temporarily pleased with him?  That not something anyone seeks. 

Maybe he’s planning to ditch the Republican Party and run for Pres as a Dem. 🤷‍♀️

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Maybe he’s planning to ditch the Republican Party and run for Pres as a Dem. 🤷‍♀️

Lol, I doubt he would seriously want to or that they would accept him if he tried.

[mirkwood]

Romney is a liberal, he does not like Trump, what courage and surprise is there in voting against him?  None.

[carlimac]

33 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Romney is a liberal, he does not like Trump, what courage and surprise is there in voting against him?  None.

Succinctly said!

[Just_A_Guy]

I respect what Romney’s decision cost him; but the reasoning he gave for his vote is logically faulty and reflects a degree of blindness that almost seems willful at this time.  (You don’t see any innocent reason, Senator, why a US President might ask Ukraine to investigate corrupt activities by a previous US Vice President?  Really?)  I expect better from a Harvard Law School grad; though I suppose using the phrase “reasonable doubt” in the context of an impeachment proceeding is kind of a red flag.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I expect better from a Harvard Law School grad

Harvard Law is overrated.

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I respect what Romney’s decision cost him; but the reasoning he gave for his vote is logically faulty and reflects a degree of blindness that almost seems willful at this time.  (You don’t see any innocent reason, Senator, why a US President might ask Ukraine to investigate corrupt activities by a previous US Vice President?  Really?)  I expect better from a Harvard Law School grad; though I suppose using the phrase “reasonable doubt” in the context of an impeachment proceeding is kind of a red flag.

Now, I've been trying to get somebody... ANYBODY... to explain to me Romney's "conscience" and I still haven't gotten anybody to talk to me without opening with "You're a racist...", well, you know the drill.

Maybe you can give me something because you have that morality issue with Trump.

Now, the way I see it - if Romney is kinda like you and he really just can't deal with a President that odious - then wouldn't his entire interview with Chris Wallace be a lie?  And how about his duty as a Representative of the State of Utah?  That doesn't go into the equation of his "conscience"?  We already know Constitutionality is not a factor in his "conscience".  

It really ticked me off when he decides to drag his Mormon faith into this thing.  He went through 2 Presidential campaigns trying to avoid having to mention his religion until it became a sticking point in the general election but now he has no problem pointing it out when it wasn't necessary.  You won't believe how many times I had to field questions from friends like - "Is it true that missionaries are recruited by the CIA to be an operative for the deep state because they just blindly follow what they're told?  Is that why Romney is doing this because he is blindly following what he's told?"...

[Grunt]

Good old Pierre Delecto.

[Jonah]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I called this long time ago.

You can admire his courage if you want.  The fact remains - Romney pre-judged this case.  That is, he threw the Constitution out to the window with the Democrats and judge Trump Guilty before proven Innocent.

Trump is the only innocent person I ever saw who prevented testimony from key first-hand witnesses
in an attempt to support his case.  You figure Mulvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani, and those in Office of
Management and Budget would voluntarily come to the aid of a President under fire (in the Senate,
House, or on FoxNews).  At least some Republicans spoke on record that they viewed the President's
actions as wrong or inappropriate.  The cat still has McConnell's tongue as he remains silent 🙂

 

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Jonah said:

Trump is the only innocent person I ever saw who prevented testimony from key first-hand witnesses
in an attempt to support his case.

A cheating spouse guards their cellphone. One with nothing to hide doesn't.  

[carlimac]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

A cheating spouse guards their cellphone. One with nothing to hide doesn't.  

I don’t think it’s that simple. I personally can’t explain it because all the details boggle my aging,  forgetful mind. But I’ve heard talk of very logical reasons why there were no witnesses called. 
 

There! That was helpful wasn’t it! 

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, carlimac said:

There! That was helpful wasn’t it! 

That's awesome. LOL! 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Now, I've been trying to get somebody... ANYBODY... to explain to me Romney's "conscience" and I still haven't gotten anybody to talk to me without opening with "You're a racist...", well, you know the drill.

Maybe you can give me something because you have that morality issue with Trump.

Now, the way I see it - if Romney is kinda like you and he really just can't deal with a President that odious - then wouldn't his entire interview with Chris Wallace be a lie?  And how about his duty as a Representative of the State of Utah?  That doesn't go into the equation of his "conscience"?  We already know Constitutionality is not a factor in his "conscience".  

It really ticked me off when he decides to drag his Mormon faith into this thing.  He went through 2 Presidential campaigns trying to avoid having to mention his religion until it became a sticking point in the general election but now he has no problem pointing it out when it wasn't necessary.  You won't believe how many times I had to field questions from friends like - "Is it true that missionaries are recruited by the CIA to be an operative for the deep state because they just blindly follow what they're told?  Is that why Romney is doing this because he is blindly following what he's told?"...

I hadn’t heard the Wallace interview until you pointed me to it just now.  I agree that Romney’s constant invocation of God is stylistically grating; and in the interview he comes off as a bit of a poser.

I can’t really speculate as to what’s going on in Romney’s head.  The only thing I can anticipate is that he probably thinks Trump is a bad guy who does bad things, which influences his perception of Trump’s intentions during the Ukrainian business.  (Maybe back when Trump was dangling State before Romney, Trump said something that makes Romney think this is a more likely scenario; who knows?)   For whatever reason, Romney *did* vote for acquittal on the second count when he could just as easily voted for conviction. 

Like Romney probably does, I do think Trump is fundamentally a bad guy in a lot of days; but I also get daily reminders that even bad guys are also entitled to due process.  I don’t think “due process” necessarily means in impeachment what it does in criminal or civil court—if a senator says “I’m going to vote for impeachment because the President called my baby ugly fifteen years ago”, I think ultimately that’s the senator’s prerogative.   But if you’re going to give lip service to due process (or at least fundamental fairness) in an impeachment context as Romney and most of the other senators have, then IMHO you’ve got to see it through; and the fact is that it’s not fundamentally fair to impeach/remove a president for doing the Exact. Same. Thing that his predecessor’s veep did less than four years ago where the veep not only got off scot-free, but is now running for the presidency himself.

But for the stake of stirring the pot:  since a number of conspiracy theories regarding Romney have been submitted, I will propose one more.  Perhaps the LDS church leadership considers it wise to always have at least one LDS senator who is seen as not being too close to the Republican party.  Certainly, if Trump loses re-election in November (and especially if the GOP also loses the Senate), it will be in both Utah’s and the Church’s interests to have at least one sitting Senator who is perceived to not have wholly been in Trump’s pocket.  In light of Senator Reid’s retirement, perhaps the First Presidency has secretly asked Romney to carry on as the Church’s “designated non-Republican” (or at least, non-Trumpling) in the Senate.

Edited February 7, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

32 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

A cheating spouse guards their cellphone. One with nothing to hide doesn't.  

Sure he does, if he knows that his spouse (unlike himself) IS a cheater.

Presidents of both parties zealously guard “executive privilege” against congressional encroachment.  It has been thus since the first Adams administration, if not with Washington himself. 

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

For whatever reason, Romney *did* vote for acquittal on the second count when he could just as easily voted for conviction.

And you must admit that such actions sure look like an attempt to cover his bases, one for the Trump haters and one for the Trump lovers.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure he does, if he knows that his spouse (unlike himself) IS a cheater.

Presidents of both parties zealously guard “executive privilege” against congressional encroachment.  It has been thus since the first Adams administration, if not with Washington himself. 

Wasn't Washington a strong advocate of a weakened presidency? 

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Perhaps the LDS church leadership considers it wise to always have at least one LDS senator who is seen as not being too close to the Republican party.  Certainly, if Trump loses re-election in November (and especially if the GOP also loses the Senate), it will be in both Utah’s and the Church’s interests to have at least one sitting Senator who is perceived to not have wholly been in Trump’s pocket.  In light of Senator Reid’s retirement, perhaps the First Presidency has secretly asked Romney to carry on as the Church’s “designated non-Republican” (or at least, non-Trumpling) in the Senate.

Can you imagine the conversation?

"Brother Romney, we know it's a hard thing that is required of you. But we believe that in making this sacrtifice, your calling and election will be made sure."

What other inducement would make someone take Reid's place?

[Just_A_Guy]

49 minutes ago, Vort said:

And you must admit that such actions sure look like an attempt to cover his bases, one for the Trump haters and one for the Trump lovers.

I daresay even Romney knows that wouldn't work with the Trumplings.