carlimac

So we’re not discussing Romney?

Recommended Posts

Now, this is another problem with Romney dragging the Church into this:

Marc Short (Pence's Chief of Staff) was on a TV interview and he was asked about Romney's claim of his Mormon Faith giving him no other choice but to vote to convict.  Short stated that Romney invoking his Mormon faith as a reason for his vote is an insult to Mike Lee who is also Mormon who voted to acquit - this becomes an insult to Mike Lee's faithfulness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Pity neither of them just broke out handbook 2 and read the rest of the context.

Quote

Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:
1. Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.
2. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
3. A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.

Church members who submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion may be subject to Church discipline.

Policies on Moral Issues - Abortion - 21.4.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Pity neither of them just broke out handbook 2 and read the rest of the context.

Policies on Moral Issues - Abortion - 21.4.1

I remember in 2002 when he was running for governor a story broke out where he convinced a member of the church not to get an abortion and the democrats beat him up for it. 

Poor Mitt can't win. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


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

I remember in 2002 when he was running for governor a story broke out where he convinced a member of the church not to get an abortion and the democrats beat him up for it. 

Poor Mitt can't win. 

His problem is he tries to win.  He tries to play the political word games.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Grunt said:

His problem is he tries to win.  He tries to play the political word games.  

Right, I don't disagree with that. I've met him several times-he owns a home on Winnipesaukee (at least, he did several years ago) and my parents do as well. When I would visit them I'd go to ward services in Wolfeboro while my parents attended a Catholic church right near there. He comes across as very distant and pompous. I also know someone who ran in the same circles he did in Boston and she said the same thing about him. 

So I undersand this Romney hate, and I don't understand it. Sure, he's a squish. He's also pompous and arrogant. But wouldn't you rather someone who agrees with you 75% of the time rather than someone who agrees with you 0% of the time? Would you rather a democrat? The perfect is the enemy of the good. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


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

Right, I don't disagree with that. I've met him several times-he owns a home on Winnipesaukee and my parents do as well. When I would visit them I'd go to ward services in Wolfeboro while my parents attended a Catholic church right near there. He comes across as very distant and pompous. I also know someone who ran in the same circles he did in Boston and she said the same thing about him. 

So I undersand this Romney hate, and I don't understand it. Sure, he's a squish. He's also pompous and arrogant. But wouldn't you rather someone who agrees with you 75% of the time rather than someone who agrees with you 0% of the time? Would you rather a democrat? The perfect is the enemy of the good. 

Yeah we made this mistake in Indiana when Senator Luger was up for election in 2012 (just as an example). He was a middle of the road Republican, definitely the kind of senator who would be considered a RINO. So the party put up a guy named Mourdock, rock solid, hard core, right wing conservative who swept the primary and trounced Luger. Unfortunately, he was also a terrible public speaker who managed to make it sound like God justified rape in a long winded, rambling answer during a debate where all he needed to say was "I'm pro life". This caused Mourdock to tank in the polls. Romney took Indiana by double digits as did, at the time, Governor Pence (2012). Mourdock, with all of his bonafide conservative credentials managed to lose a safe senate seat Luger had held for decades to a democrat, Joe Donnelly, who spent six years siding with Obama about everything. It was not worth losing a weak sauce Republican, Luger, who I agreed with 75 to 80 percent of the time, for a hard core conservative who managed to lose a safe seat by being dumb.

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


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

Right, I don't disagree with that. I've met him several times-he owns a home on Winnipesaukee and my parents do as well. When I would visit them I'd go to ward services in Wolfeboro while my parents attended a Catholic church right near there. He comes across as very distant and pompous. I also know someone who ran in the same circles he did in Boston and she said the same thing about him. 

So I undersand this Romney hate, and I don't understand it. Sure, he's a squish. He's also pompous and arrogant. But wouldn't you rather someone who agrees with you 75% of the time rather than someone who agrees with you 0% of the time? Would you rather a democrat? The perfect is the enemy of the good. 

I can dislike a man and still be glad the alternative isn't in office, all while hoping someone better primaries him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Yeah we made this mistake in Indiana when Senator Luger was up for election in 2012 (just as an example). He was a middle of the Road Republican, definitely the kind of senator who would be considered a RINO. So the party put up a guy named Mourdock, rock solid hard core right wing conservative who swept the primary and trounced Luger. Unfortunately, he was also a terrible public speaker who managed to make it sound like God justified rape in a long winded rambling answer during a debate where all he needed to say was "I'm pro life". This caused Mourdock to tank in the poll. Romney took Indiana by Double digits as did, at the time Governor Pence (2012). Mourdock, with all of his bonafide conservative credentials managed to lose a safe senate senate Luger had held for decades to a democrat, Joe Donnelly, who spent six years siding with Obama about everything. It was not worth losing a weak sauce Republican, Luger, who I agreed with 75 to 80 percent of the time, for a hard core conservative who managed to lose a safe seat by being dumb.

Alabama did it with Roy Moore. People lose their common sense when it comes to politics because they look for idealogical purity. Partially because they want to feel superior to those of us who dirty our hands and vote for the person with the best chance of winning. So you aren't alone my friend. It's happened since the dawn of time. Sadly, it's the nature of the beast. I learned this when Clinton ran against Bush is 92. Some lady wrote a FOUR PAGE ESSAY on her kids homework stating she'd never vote for either because of the abortion issue.Neither one was pro life enough for her. Taught me a valuable lesson on politics, that's for sure. I've never forgotten it. So I owe her a cookie. 
 

5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I can dislike a man and still be glad the alternative isn't in office, all while hoping someone better primaries him.

Of course you can. I get the feeling though that for many people, they have unrealistic expectations about politicians. In the real world, you won't agree with anyone 100% of the time. And if that makes you dislike someone, well, then...haters gonna hate. 

 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 1:27 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

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

Unless it was a tactic.  "Look at me!  I'm the Republican who, knowing Trump was going to get acquitted anyway, gets to go on record as reasonable because I did vote to convict on one article but not the other!  Now when the winds blow toward moderation I can say I've established my moderate cred!"

The man's become a weasel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

[1] 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:

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] 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.

1.  Ok, thanks for clarifying.  I think lots of folks (including nearly all of the GOP during the Clinton administration) would disagree that personal versus professional ethics are so neatly severable; at least for representatives in a democratic republic.  The American political system is fundamentally trust-based and fact-based; it unravels once you’ve got a critical mass of people openly saying that trust and facts don’t matter.

Regarding a representative’s duty to implement the will of the people in his constituency:  I’m sure you’re aware that there is an old and storied philosophical debate about whether elected representatives should act as mere rubber stamps for the will of the masses, or whether they ought to apply their own independent judgment in executing their legislative responsibilities.  I’m sure you’re also aware that the framers feared a tyranny of the majority and designed Congress—and especially the Senate—to be resistant to ephemeral waves of popular opinion.  That’s why Senators were originally chosen by state legislators, why they serve six-year terms, and why the Senate doesn’t dissolve every time we get a new president (who, of course, is *also* not elected directly by the people).  

My problem with Romney isn’t fundamentally that he refused to substitute my judgment for his own.  My problem with Romney is simply that his judgment was wrong.

2.  It’s not like aliens flew in and threatened remove Trump from office if he didn’t endorse Moore.  Trump made an error in judgment on endorsements.  Two of them, probably. ;) 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Now, this is another problem with Romney dragging the Church into this:

Marc Short (Pence's Chief of Staff) was on a TV interview and he was asked about Romney's claim of his Mormon Faith giving him no other choice but to vote to convict.  Short stated that Romney invoking his Mormon faith as a reason for his vote is an insult to Mike Lee who is also Mormon who voted to acquit - this becomes an insult to Mike Lee's faithfulness.

Let’s be careful of how nonbelievers try to pervert our faith (and our brethren’s statements about their own faith) for their own political ends.  Romney described himself as generally religious and went on to talk about the oath he swore to God led him to be very careful with his analysis; and went out of his way to assert that everyone in the Senate was acting in good faith and following the dictates of their consciences.  There was nothing uniquely Mormon about that; Short’s just engaging in the old game of trying to alienate a feared political adversary from his or her perceived base, and in this case the perceived “base” is Mormons.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


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

Let’s be careful of how nonbelievers try to pervert our faith (and our brethren’s statements about their own faith) for their own political ends.  Romney described himself as generally religious and went on to talk about the oath he swore to God led him to be very careful with his analysis; and went out of his way to assert that everyone in the Senate was acting in good faith and following the dictates of their consciences.  There was nothing uniquely Mormon about that; Short’s just engaging in the old game of trying to alienate a feared political adversary from his or her perceived base, and in this case the perceived “base” is Mormons.

Yeah...  I did not vote for Trump... I did not vote for Romney.  I don't agree with or understand some of the stuff they do.  But it is part of my beliefs and my faith to be charitable and say they are doing what they think is best even when I think that best is completely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, anatess2 said:

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?

Congress made a tactical mistake not to seek those subpoenas.  They knew that Trump and company
would stall this in the court for years so they rushed it.  There is a current outstanding court case for
former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify.  It may get resolved in 2 or 3 years.

Seeing that Trump was entering in his fourth year as President and is most likely to win a second term,
they should have let this go through the courts and then try the impeachment some time in 2022 or
2023.

Maybe it doesn't matter. Truth continues to trickle out as more emails were released in December or
January.  Trump's next battle is to try to stop Bolton's book. Good luck with that.  But even if the book
is suppressed, he'll be on the road doing many talking tours.  I lost track of all the Trump associates
who are in jail or who will still yet go to jail in the future.

The Republicans have seemed to admit that what he did was wrong and inappropriate but not worthy
of removal and that seems to infuriate Trump; who still thinks it was a perfect call.   Even after being
acquitted, he is still lashing out on twitter.  And now being emboldened by the recent acquittal, he has
fired Colonel Vindman.  The purge now begins.  Hopefully Romney is not the next victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Jonah said:

Even after being acquitted, he is still lashing out on twitter.  And now being emboldened by the recent acquittal, he has
fired Colonel Vindman.  The purge now begins.  Hopefully Romney is not the next victim.

AFAIK Vindman (as a military man) is being reassigned, not fired (aka “dishonorably discharged”); and I’m willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt on that.  It’s just plain awkward to have to keep working so closely with someone whose public testimony was so embarrassing.  I stand by a president’s right to keep the subordinates around him that he needs to get his work done in an effective way—and dispense with those who undermine his objectives or effectiveness.  

As for Romney - he’s got four more years before he’s up for re-election.  Trump doesn’t have the authority to fire Article I federal officials; and Romney’s too old to be thinking about a presidential run.  Romney’s millions mean he isn’t exactly going to be heckled by random people in the grocery store.  The 2020 Senate map is looking *very* close—if the GOP keeps the Senate, they’re going to need Romney even if they don’t like him; if they lose it, Romney will be one of the few GOP senators who *might* be able to work with the Dems.  


If Romney’s vote reflects any political calculation, he’s probably betting that Trump loses re-election in 2020, triggering a scenario in which the Trumpist faction get the blame, Romney gets to say “I told you so”, and that the GOP re-orders itself around a new power structure through a process in which he takes an active but largely behind-the-scenes role.  (Remember, his niece is the current RNC chair.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something about what he's done just feels right to me; like it was the answer to someone's prayer. The resultant backlash seems to confirm that his actions were indeed self motivated. I hope he becomes an example of letting faith and virtue back into politics where they rightfully belong.

Share this post


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

AFAIK Vindman (as a military man) is being reassigned, not fired (aka “dishonorably discharged”); and I’m willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt on that.  It’s just plain awkward to have to keep working so closely with someone whose public testimony was so embarrassing.  I stand by a president’s right to keep the subordinates around him that he needs to get his work done in an effective way—and dispense with those who undermine his objectives or effectiveness.  

As for Romney - he’s got four more years before he’s up for re-election.  Trump doesn’t have the authority to fire Article I federal officials; and Romney’s too old to be thinking about a presidential run.  Romney’s millions mean he isn’t exactly going to be heckled by random people in the grocery store.  The 2020 Senate map is looking *very* close—if the GOP keeps the Senate, they’re going to need Romney even if they don’t like him; if they lose it, Romney will be one of the few GOP senators who *might* be able to work with the Dems.  


If Romney’s vote reflects any political calculation, he’s probably betting that Trump loses re-election in 2020, triggering a scenario in which the Trumpist faction get the blame, Romney gets to say “I told you so”, and that the GOP re-orders itself around a new power structure through a process in which he takes an active but largely behind-the-scenes role.  (Remember, his niece is the current RNC chair.)

With Utah being Utah, I don't think the GOP really needs to worry all that much about losing a Senate Seat there (though you can never tell).  Whether it is Romney occupying it or someone other Republican, it will still most likely be a Republican Senator from Utah.

Utah is one of the most Republican States in the Union (but not the MOST Republican).  It could flip or change but I expect Texas would flip before Utah.

Share this post


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

With Utah being Utah, I don't think the GOP really needs to worry all that much about losing a Senate Seat there (though you can never tell).  Whether it is Romney occupying it or someone other Republican, it will still most likely be a Republican Senator from Utah.

Utah is one of the most Republican States in the Union (but not the MOST Republican).  It could flip or change but I expect Texas would flip before Utah.

I tend to agree with you.....but......

Utah is changing. The mayor of SLC was an out lesbian. As more people move there, the stranglehold that the GOP has will fade away. In politics nothing lasts forever. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


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

I tend to agree with you.....but......

Utah is changing. The mayor of SLC was an out lesbian. As more people move there, the stranglehold that the GOP has will fade away. In politics nothing lasts forever. 

In the long run, of course you’re right.  At some point Utah will turn blue.  At some point California and Massachusetts will turn red.  And at some point the United States will dissolve into civil war.

The question is which of those inevitabilities will happen first; and I’m not sure any answer is a sure bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Moonbeast32 said:

Something about what he's done just feels right to me; like it was the answer to someone's prayer. The resultant backlash seems to confirm that his actions were indeed self motivated. I hope he becomes an example of letting faith and virtue back into politics where they rightfully belong.

Riiight.... because Mike Lee doesn’t pray.  Nor Pence, nor any of the other people of faith in Congress.

And may I remind you that Romney played down his Mormon faith when it was inconvenient to win primaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fascinating to me (and a little depressing) that Mitt Romney gets more hate from LDS, even though he agrees with us 75% of the time politically, than Harry Reid. Who agrees with us 0% of the time. 

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