carlimac

So we’re not discussing Romney?

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

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

I’d have to look it up.  As I understand it Washington was pretty disgusted with the whole government business by the end of his two terms.  I remember seeing a quote of his that was very similar to the “You won’t have me to kick around anymore” quote that would be given by Nixon two centuries later”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.  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 🙂

 

This doesn’t make sense either.

Trump doesn’t have to allow his administration to potentially get themselves “Michael Flynn’d” unless he is subpoenaed to.  It is not his job to prove himself innocent.  He is innocent by default.  It is on Congress to prove his guilt.  Now... here’s right back at you - why did Congress not get a subpoena if they want those testimonies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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.

None of this makes sense in the light of his passionate invocation of God’s name.

Any of these scenarios bring the unavoidable question on honesty - including being the Church asking him to distance himself.  You don’t have to be dishonest to set yourself apart from Trump.  Orin Hatch did it without sacrificing ethics.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’d have to look it up.  As I understand it Washington was pretty disgusted with the whole government business by the end of his two terms.  I remember seeing a quote of his that was very similar to the “You won’t have me to kick around anymore” quote that would be given by Nixon two centuries later”.

Yup. He got really frustrated because the government had turned into what he didn't want it to-beholden to political parities and interfering too much in foreign governments. 

And yes, he had grave concerns about strong, centralized power being held by one person. Like a king. Or a president. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched a Blaze TV about the missing money sent to Ukraine to prop up their banks. Mind blowing!! I recommend y’all watch it. The house and MSM has spun a narrative that had nothing to do with what really happened. 

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

None of this makes sense in the light of his passionate invocation of God’s name.

Any of these scenarios bring the unavoidable question on honesty - including being the Church asking him to distance himself.  You don’t have to be dishonest to set yourself apart from Trump.  Orin Hatch did it without sacrificing ethics.

*Shrug* Many, many people who are wrong—and even dishonest with themselves and/or others—also sincerely think they have God on their side.  

I would also respectfully suggest that you have an overly optimistic sense of good ol’  “One-term-I-PROMISE!!!”- Orin’s innate honesty.  But, that’s another topic entirely. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It is not his job to prove himself innocent.  He is innocent by default.  It is on Congress to prove his guilt.

That is indeed the whole point.

I know our whole government is badly messed up when I find myself secretly, and sometimes openly, rooting for the likes of Donald J. Trump, and not merely as the least bad of the corrupt choices, but as the only person (garbage mouth aside) who makes any attempt at even looking like he acts on principle. Unless, as many Democrats do, you consider "Impeach Donald Trump and remove him from office!" to qualify as a principle,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would also respectfully suggest that you have an overly optimistic sense of good ol’  “One-term-I-PROMISE!!!”- Orin’s innate honesty.  But, that’s another topic entirely. ;)

Like "Read my lips: No new taxes", fervently pledging to be a one-termer doesn't mean that subsequent revelations won't change your mind. It looks terrible and self-serving, but I can easily believe that an honest, well-intentioned, and principled person could change his/her views on a guarantee or campaign promise that s/he comes to see as naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

*Shrug* Many, many people who are wrong—and even dishonest with themselves and/or others—also sincerely think they have God on their side.  

I would also respectfully suggest that you have an overly optimistic sense of good ol’  “One-term-I-PROMISE!!!”- Orin’s innate honesty.  But, that’s another topic entirely. ;) 

Yeah, another topic entirely because Hatch did not go pearl clutching infront of the nation asserting his Godly nature while his intentions bring honesty into question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And yes, he had grave concerns about strong, centralized power being held by one person. Like a king. Or a president. 

That's why there's such a thing as the US Constitution that splits power equally among 3 branches of government and equally among all 50 States.  Except... many people wants to upend that set-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Really! Watch this!

 

I haven't had a chance to listen to Glen Beck in a long while... do you know if he said anything about Romney's conviction vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, carlimac said:

Really! Watch this! 

 


You know, for whatever reason, I decided to watch this piece tonight after you recommended it. 
 

Glad I did!! Thanks for recommending! 
 

Gave me a much greater understanding of the reasoning behind this particular impeachment process. It also gives a great insight into how deep the corruption really goes. 
 

It also solidifies what I thought about Mitt Romney..... Not. A. Fan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

I haven't had a chance to listen to Glen Beck in a long while... do you know if he said anything about Romney's conviction vote?

I don’t think so. It explains what was going on with Trump’s phone call with Zelinzki. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vort said:

Like "Read my lips: No new taxes", fervently pledging to be a one-termer doesn't mean that subsequent revelations won't change your mind. It looks terrible and self-serving, but I can easily believe that an honest, well-intentioned, and principled person could change his/her views on a guarantee or campaign promise that s/he comes to see as naive.

The trouble was, Hatch kept making that promise—that this was his last run— in election. after. election. For, like, thirty years.  At some point it became a sort of proto-Trumpian “it’s not really a lie if no one believed you when you said it” paradigm. And Hatch was quite willing to wear his religion on his sleeve when it suited his purpose.

Oh—and I think I’ve mentioned a couple times before that I was at a cottage meeting with some key Hatch staffers around 2010-ish; and they made some assumptions about me because I was a recent law school grad, and said some things I’m quite sure they wouldn’t have said in front of the sort of audience they were courting.  Suffice it to say that they hated—hated—the Tea Party.  I wish Senator Hatch well, but he was absolutely as two-faced as they come; and that didn’t go away just because Hatch elected to kiss our new messiah’s posterior on his way out the door.

/threadjack

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL.

Well, I was quite surprised when Utah voted to have Romney as their Senator.  If anyone running in the race didn't represent what I saw Utahns wanting, Republican or Democrat, it was a North Eastern transplant who decided to move to Utah for a political position.

And they voted him in!!!

I still can't figure it out.

If, they are now getting stung by the scorpion they decided to carry across the river, I suppose maybe next time they'll look a little further than fame and fortune of the candidate and a little more on his back history, what he's actually done in the past, and the way he's done things.

What Romney did shouldn't be that much of a surprise to the media or anyone else.  He tried to play both sides (voting yes and no at the same time) and defected from his party sending a clear message to both sides about how legitimate or non-legitimate the impeachment may be viewed in the future.

It was a safer choice in part on his side because, as I have said, this impeachment was worthless.  There was no point.  It was already written that there was no way Trump was going to be kicked out of office.  It was a waste of time.  Romney's vote didn't change that outcome and he knew it wouldn't, thus for him to play both sides was, at least for the present, a safe choice.

The ramifications of the future will depend on whether Utahns still feel he represents their interests or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

LOL.

Well, I was quite surprised when Utah voted to have Romney as their Senator.  If anyone running in the race didn't represent what I saw Utahns wanting, Republican or Democrat, it was a North Eastern transplant who decided to move to Utah for a political position.

And they voted him in!!!

I still can't figure it out.

If, they are now getting stung by the scorpion they decided to carry across the river, I suppose maybe next time they'll look a little further than fame and fortune of the candidate and a little more on his back history, what he's actually done in the past, and the way he's done things.

What Romney did shouldn't be that much of a surprise to the media or anyone else.  He tried to play both sides (voting yes and no at the same time) and defected from his party sending a clear message to both sides about how legitimate or non-legitimate the impeachment may be viewed in the future.

It was a safer choice in part on his side because, as I have said, this impeachment was worthless.  There was no point.  It was already written that there was no way Trump was going to be kicked out of office.  It was a waste of time.  Romney's vote didn't change that outcome and he knew it wouldn't, thus for him to play both sides was, at least for the present, a safe choice.

The ramifications of the future will depend on whether Utahns still feel he represents their interests or not.

It doesn't much matter if he starts representing their interests... Romney has zero influence in the Senate regardless of which party holds the majority.  Zero.  Utah wants something, they'll have to hope Mike Lee gets enough Senators to care about that something because Romney will not find a single Senator - Democrat or Republican - to carry water with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The trouble was, Hatch kept making that promise—that this was his last run— in election. after. election. For, like, thirty years.  At some point it became a sort of proto-Trumpian “it’s not really a lie if no one believed you when you said it” paradigm. And Hatch was quite willing to wear his religion on his sleeve when it suited his purpose.

Oh—and I think I’ve mentioned a couple times before that I was at a cottage meeting with some key Hatch staffers around 2010-ish; and they made some assumptions about me because I was a recent law school grad, and said some things I’m quite sure they wouldn’t have said in front of the sort of audience they were courting.  Suffice it to say that they hated—hated—the Tea Party.  I wish Senator Hatch well, but he was absolutely as two-faced as they come; and that didn’t go away just because Hatch elected to kiss our new messiah’s posterior on his way out the door.

/threadjack

Hatch did not kiss Trump's posterior on his way out.  Not at all.  He simply acknowledged he is LEGITIMATELY the President now and they had to work with him to get things done.  Just because he didn't do the Romney spiel of getting up on the podium and "condemning" whatever was the MSM-propped Trump outrage of the day doesn't mean he kissed his posterior.  Oh and his staff decided to go Trump-style-winning on their social media - which is very effective - still doesn't mean he kissed his posterior.  Let's put it this way, Reddit's The Donald lambasted Hatch even as they hur-hur-hur'd his tweets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Ted Cruz has a podcast on iTunes called The Verdict.  In one of the episodes he clearly laid out the case against calling witnesses. 

Lion Ted's podcast has become my favorite to listen to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Hatch did not kiss Trump's posterior on his way out.  Not at all.  He simply acknowledged he is LEGITIMATELY the President now and they had to work with him to get things done.  Just because he didn't do the Romney spiel of getting up on the podium and "condemning" whatever was the MSM-propped Trump outrage of the day doesn't mean he kissed his posterior.  Oh and his staff decided to go Trump-style-winning on their social media - which is very effective - still doesn't mean he kissed his posterior.  Let's put it this way, Reddit's The Donald lambasted Hatch even as they hur-hur-hur'd his tweets.

As many Republicans used to understand back when Obama was in the White House, political wiliness and ethics are not synonymous.  Your original suggestion in this thread was that Hatch is ethical.

Hatch went beyond supporting Trump when he is right while maintaining his own conscience and ethical judgment, at one point telling a reporter that he didn’t care about allegations of immoral/illegal behavior because he liked the Trump economy and Trump’s political positions.  If anything, we might conclude that there would have been *no* set of factual circumstances under which Hatch would have voted for removal, whereas we know that Romney was willing to do so.  How does that make Hatch the ethical one?  You can only do it by defining “ethics” as “unconditional support for the sitting president [or:  the person of Donald J. Trump]”, which once again invokes 1 Kings 19:18.  Do we have any core beliefs or sense of right-and-wrong that is independent of our support for President Trump? Who is our god, really?  Who is Hatch’s god?  Who is Romney’s? 

Belated paens to Hatch’s purported virtue from people who formerly dismissed him as a swamp creature, merely serve as one more instance of how conservatism is in real danger of morphing from being a process- and principle-oriented movement, into a mere cult of personality.  Support Trump?  You’re a “conservative”.  Question him to any degree?  You’re not.

Romney’s posing and flip-flopping are deeply unfortunate attributes shared by most in his position.  Can we at least be honest and admit that our problem is less about his ideological stances  (or lack thereof) generally, and more about the fact that he sort of does prick our own individual consciences?  That his presence and voice is an inconvenient reminder that *we* have let ourselves become the cheerleader for a lying raping predator and allowed “‘might makes right” to become our guiding star (while telling that God who revealed D&C 98:10 to butt out of our politics) whilst Romney—notwithstanding his other flaws—has not?

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Let's not be too hard on Utahns.  Trump endorsed Romney's Senate run.

Trump prides himself on picking the best and smartest people (like Roy Moore!).  Either we have to admit that Trump *wanted* Romney in the Senate knowing Romney might shank him like this (which actually might be possible); or we might have to acknowledge that Trump missed something that even I (who supported Mike Kennedy throughout the process) was able to see. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As many Republicans used to understand back when Obama was in the White House, political wiliness and ethics are not synonymous.  Your original suggestion in this thread was that Hatch is ethical.

I apologize.  That wasn't what I meant.  I simply meant Hatch distanced himself from Trump without being unethical about it... not that I think Hatch was ethical on all things.  And I used ethics more in the context of personal ethics (which is what Romney is pulling) rather than ethics pertaining to his Senate office.  They can be 2 different things.  And you brought it up down here:

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Hatch went beyond supporting Trump when he is right while maintaining his own conscience and ethical judgment, at one point telling a reporter that he didn’t care about allegations of immoral/illegal behavior because he liked the Trump economy and Trump’s political positions.  If anything, we might conclude that there would have been *no* set of factual circumstances under which Hatch would have voted for removal, whereas we know that Romney was willing to do so.  How does that make Hatch the ethical one?  You can only do it by defining “ethics” as “unconditional support for the sitting president [or:  the person of Donald J. Trump]”, which once again invokes 1 Kings 19:18.  Do we have any core beliefs or sense of right-and-wrong that is independent of our support for President Trump? Who is our god, really?  Who is Hatch’s god?  Who is Romney’s? 

Belated paens to Hatch’s purported virtue from people who formerly dismissed him as a swamp creature, merely serve as one more instance of how conservatism is in real danger of morphing from being a process- and principle-oriented movement, into a mere cult of personality.  Support Trump?  You’re a “conservative”.  Question him to any degree?  You’re not.

Romney’s posing and flip-flopping are deeply unfortunate attributes shared by most in his position.  Can we at least be honest and admit that our problem is less about his ideological stances  (or lack thereof) generally, and more about the fact that he sort of does prick our own individual consciences?  That his presence and voice is an inconvenient reminder that *we* have let ourselves become the cheerleader for a lying raping predator and allowed “‘might makes right” to become our guiding star (while telling that God who revealed D&C 98:10 to butt out of our politics) whilst Romney—notwithstanding his other flaws—has not?

There is personal ethics and there is work ethic.  When your oath of office is to represent the people to promote their interests, there will ALWAYS come a time when your personal ethics will conflict with your work ethic.  If these 2 become irreconcilable, the best option for you is to RESIGN your office instead of sacrifice one for the other.  But, at the same time, Trump - like everybody else - has a work ethic and a personal ethic.  Your boss has a work ethic and a personal ethic.  Supporting his work ethic does not imply you also support his personal ethic.  For example (and this happened to me), your boss might be an active homosexual who supports killing healthy babies in the womb up to the time of birth... working for him and praising his work to bring a project into completion on time and under budget does not indicate in any way at all that you support his homosexual lifestyle and baby-killing.

 

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Trump prides himself on picking the best and smartest people (like Roy Moore!).  Either we have to admit that Trump *wanted* Romney in the Senate knowing Romney might shank him like this (which actually might be possible); or we might have to acknowledge that Trump missed something that even I (who supported Mike Kennedy throughout the process) was able to see. 

Hah hah.  Trump didn't pick Roy Moore.  He endorsed his opponent in the Primaries - that encumbent guy, can't remember his name.  Romney asked for Trump's endorsement.  Trump gave it because he needs a Republican majority in the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now