Jump to content

Romney's Decision Process for Vote on Impeachment


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Maybe I was just wishful thinking. I mean, Romney did get the nomination in 2012. I didn't think that would ever happen.

Perhaps it was the prePrimary stuff that stuck with me.  

It appears that EVs voted for him in patterns to previous candidates***...but as to liking us pretty sure that hasn't changed much.

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/05/576082548/deep-differences-remain-between-mormon-and-evangelical-communities

From 2014, hoping to find a more recent one to compare:

https://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/pf_14-07-16_interreligiousrelations_all/

***https://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/07/election-2012-post-mortem-white-evangelicals-and-support-for-romney/

If still open tomorrow, I will try to find more on point studies.  Got to be up in 5 hours.

Edited by Calm
Link to post
3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

He voted his conscience and his actions will reflect on the church.

Are you equally concerned about how the things that the Trumps say and do reflect poorly on the office of the White House, and our country?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7971087/Don-Jr-calls-shares-vicious-meme-Mitt-Romney-calling-p-sy.html

What kind of people have we been tricked into defending here?

  • Like 4
Link to post
8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The other thread got closed but if the conversation continues here I want to make sure my ideas go with it. Here's my post from the other thread:

 

I am so beyond confused here.

We have had many many threads where people have argued that it is not just a constitutional right but a traditional and proper right for religion to operate in the public sphere. That people can and should make decisions in the public sphere based on their religious belief. That we should defend religious freedom, the freedom to believe and act on that belief in the public sphere.

And now...

Here we have Mormons saying that a Mormon who acted on his Mormon belief in the public sphere should not have done so.

The only difference I can see is political. Please show me that I am wrong. Please show me that people should act on their religious beliefs in the public sphere UNLESS somehow their acting on their religious belief in the public sphere somehow conveys the idea that they actually believe God told them to do what they did.

What in the world...? Do you want people to consult God and act on it or not? Do you want people to consult God and actually believe He speaks to them or not?

   4 hours ago,  Bernard Gui said: 

The problem as I see it is saying, "I consulted God, and God told me thus and so; therefore, my position is the right one." 

Please, don't you ever bear your testimony again about how God told you that the LDS church is the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. You'll be a huge hypocrite if you do.

There is plenty of hypocrisy going around on all sides, thank you. 

You have misunderstood. I have said multiple times that I have no problem with his decision to convict. I don’t think he is a traitor. He appropriately made his case using information from the questioning as he understood it and was motivated by his sincere beliefs to do the right thing, but publicly tying this to our Church was unnecessary and inappropriate, in my opinion. He does not speak for the Church. Injecting his religion into the public debate increased the divide by calling into question the sincerity and spiritual acuity of other good people who saw things differently. That very thing is happening in this discussion.

I believe what my friend did in a similar situation as I described on the closed thread would have been a better response. I am sure many Senators and Representatives sincerely prayed over the matter. Did any of them publicly appeal to their religion as a justification for their decision to convict or acquit (serious question)?

No offense intended, but what if a Catholic Senator said the Blessed Virgin appeared to him and told him to acquit?  Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, says she prayed for Trump. Apparently, she got her answer. She may have inadvertently saved his bacon. 😉

In a trial situation, what would happen if a juror said, “I prayed to God (or Allah or Baal or Crom) and he told me to convict the creep?” 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1
Link to post

There is this:

Quote

Nobody should be surprised that in the wake of 3,500 lawsuits, Trump will conclude that he is indeed above the law, that the legal regime exists only for suckers, and also that he can repurpose the machinery of law to investigate, harass, and punish the whistleblowers and the witnesses and those who sought to constrain him. At which point the law won’t just be the thing that applies only to losers and suckers, but also the thing that can be used to put down those who sought justice in the first place. And nobody should be surprised that having invited foreign election interference and having been acquitted for doing so, this president will use the formidable power of his Justice Department to manipulate the 2020 election, and to call into question the results of that election in the courts.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/trump-impeachment-acquittal-law-is-for-suckers.html

Nibley's essay on The Unsolved Loyalty Problem talks about how the terrible cruelty grew from the notion of "one package loyalty, when everything had to be 100%".   The backlash against Romney shows that "being on the team" is more important than principle, and evidence for that matter.   Romney's critics immediately resort to name calling, and character bashing.  What about the actual evidence of the case?   I've several times discussed the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, and the difference between operating at Position 2, where Tribal/Group association is the basis of critical thought.   Us/Them is all one needs to consider.  All good consists of being one of Us. All evil consists of being one of Them.

While I respect his courage, knowing in advance that he was going to be reviled, knowing that Trump is notoriously vindictive and petty, and that his followers emulate his worst traits, I thought Romney's argument against the obstruction point was silly.  Not guilty of obstruction because the Democrats didn't spend endless years being obstructed in the courts?  Trump refused any cooperation, and the witnesses who did speak in response to legal subpoena for the House Investigation all defied Trump's orders.  That is obstruction by definition.  It was public, obvious, and clearly not motivated by confidence that more testimony and documentation would clear him of any hint of wrong doing.  The stuff that came out from Bolton and Parnas and Freedom of Information Act requests was all consistent with the initial picture.  Trump and his allies are not only obstructive, but openly violating the laws against retaliation against whistle blowers.  It's very Mafia.  Comey found himself making such comparisons based on his first interviews with Trump compared to his earlier experience with actual Mafia.

All of this puts me in mind of this little cautionary tale.

Quote

And Amalickiah was desirous to be a aking; and those people who were wroth were also desirous that he should be their king; and they were the greater part of them the lower bjudges of the land, and they were seeking for power.

5 And they had been led by the aflatteries of Amalickiah, that if they would support him and establish him to be their king that he would make them rulers over the people.

6 Thus they were led away by Amalickiah to dissensions, notwithstanding the preaching of Helaman and his brethren, yea, notwithstanding their exceedingly great care over the church, for they were ahigh priests over the church.

7 And there were many in the church who believed in the aflattering words of Amalickiah,

So Rush Limbaugh, like Rosa Parks, gets the Medal of Freedom?   Babylon oh Babylon, we bit thee, hello.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to post
17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

One of the early things I remember my mother teaching me over and over is that just because others do it doesn't mean it is ok and is not an excuse for my behavior. Did she teach a sound moral principle?

Also, where is the line? How far do we allow moral requirements to drop?

The belief that politics is war is simply reinforcing the current extreme polarity. In war, you do not compromise with your enemy. In war, you do whatever is necessary to win. Is that how we want our politics to be? Isn't compromise and restraint a moral virtue we should expect in politics so that we have a moral government? If we keep telling ourselves politics is war then we will never get out of the current situation we are in. Politics is not war, it is the art of governing. I don't want to live under "martial law." I don't want Americans to view other Americans as "the enemy" just because they are in a different political party. And I certainly don't want this current insanity of hyper partisanship to continue.

And yes, I want a good man (or woman) to lead the country. They certainly don't have to be perfect, because they certainly cannot be, but let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Just because we can't have outstanding purity, as you say, doesn't mean we abandon the desire to have a certain level of purity.

Comparing Trump to Moses, to Joshua, to David has also been another mind-blowing thing I have seen primarily from evangelicals. Is Trump really an anointed prophet and king of God? Is he going to write beautiful psalms begging God for help and forgiveness?

If we can excuse the personal behavior of Trump, then it becomes quite easy to excuse almost all personal behavior of any politician.

You should see some of the things one of his spiritual advisers, Paula White has been saying lately, that Trump will be helping Jesus cleanse the world of evil and facilitate the rapture. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Injecting his religion into the public debate increased the divide by calling into question the sincerity and spiritual acuity of other good people who saw things differently. That very thing is happening in this discussion.

Meanwhile, as we discuss Romney's errors in stating publicly the role prayer played in his decision, Donald Trump turns the National Prayer Breakfast into the world's largest Rameumptom.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1225424392928288768

Edited by Rajah Manchou
  • Like 1
Link to post
43 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

What about the actual evidence of the case?

The evidence did not prove the case. Was it actually proven? No. What if he is innocent? He wasn't a Russian agent. He wasn't doing this to interfere with an election either. The 'moral superiority' of the left and never-Trumpers is tiring. What if you are wrong? The whistleblower has suffered no retaliation and it is not against the law to name him which the President has not done. If you're using James Comey as a 'reliable' witness, it shows you haven't been paying attention to his well documented deficiencies. 

So Rush Limbaugh like Ellen, gets the medal of Freedom? Yes. He's an American radio icon who changed history. You don't have to like him. He is not a perfect man.  But, why on your high moral ground, don't you let an award to a dying man, beloved by millions of Americans, be presented without the snark. Isn't that what you want from the President...for him to let the accusations and attacks go?

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
34 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Donald Trump turns the National Prayer Breakfast into the world's largest Rameumptom.

Not applicable for the following reasons:

  1.  he uses different stages continually.
  2. he speaks on many topics, some current, some reminders, some discarded, etc.
  3. he has a perfect right to counter the massive deluge of leftist propaganda put out 24/7 by the dominant media.
  4. he has to be tough and thick-skinned to fight against misrepresentations of people that disparage the US Constitution, the ideals of the Constitutional Republic, conservative values, etc.
  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Hopefully Utahns will get rid of Romney. He is and has always been, a RINO.

Reagan and both Bush presidents are now RINOs when you look at how quickly the ideology has changed.

I feel like I am in a bizarro world where almost everyone else has the long term memory of a goldfish. Has everyone forgotten what Republicans stood for even 8 years ago? 

Where are the independent senators in the days of Nixon that told him to resign? During the partisan farce that was the Clinton impeachment they claimed perjury over a personal sexual affair was somehow an abuse of presidential power but we have shifted to where trying to make deals with foreign powers to get dirt on political enemies and using presidential power to attempt to discredit political opponents is cool and all good? Even in the Clinton impeachment both sides got together to work out rules for the investigation and trial in the House and the Senate. There was a baseline of respect for the process even when everyone knew it would come down on partisan lines. People whine about how Trump is the only thing holding back Venezuelan or Russian style politics while watching their hero use the playbooks of banana republic tyrants and nod in approval.

If this kind of politics becomes the norm we are doomed the first time a relatively bright president with real ambitions and drive is elected. At that point it will not matter much which side wins. :( 

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

he has to be tough and thick-skinned to fight against misrepresentations of people that disparage the US Constitution, the ideals of the Constitutional Republic, conservative values, etc.

Counterpoint: He is incredibly thin-skinned. While everyone can and should defend themselves when attacked he lashes out like a grade school student with rants and schoolyard level insults.

Also while there is a veneer of conservative ideology in what he is doing his whole life, manner, and approach undermines the values he is supposedly backing. A litigious billionaire playboy whose greatest objective a few years ago was winning in Hollywood is conservativism now? What happened? Memory of a goldfish everywhere.

  • Like 2
Link to post

For over 30 years, Rush Limbaugh has been emphatically preaching hatred of Democrats. Unless you are a real Republican (as opposed to a RINO or independent), you are the enemy. The enemy of True Americans aren't the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans, Saudis, terrorists, pollution, poverty, economic downswings, or drugs. The biggest enemy are so-called Americans who aren't a Real Republicans.

Limbaugh's rants used to be cute, but now it is clear that the Republican Party has drunk the Kool Aid. That is why they love Trump--he sounds like Limbaugh and not like a responsible leader. When President Obama was continuing President G.W. Bush's mainstream economic policies of using targeted deficit spending to pull us out of major recession, Republicans screamed about how terrible debt was and how Obama was evil for not having a balanced budget. We needed a Tea Party to revolt! This is despite the fact that from 2009 to 2015, the U.S. consistently chipped away at the deficit and reduced it by about 70%. But that wasn't good enough for Republicans--the deficit was considered an existential threat and Democrats were evil for being a part of it.

Then Trump is elected, and he immediately increases government spending and reduced government income, causing the deficit to more than double. But Republicans suddenly don't care. Trump is handling the economy Perfectly! Where is the principle behind this, other than whatever Trump does is Perfect because Trump says it is Perfect? The only way I can understand the current Republican party is this: mainstream Republicans are good and Democrats are evil, much more so than Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, or even Saudi terrorists. That is why when a Republican doesn't toe the party line, they are called the worst thing possible: RINO. If Romney made secret deals with Russia that jeopardize national security it wouldn't be a big deal, as long as it benefited Trump personally it would be considered patriotic. But if a Republican votes against Trump? Then the senator should be impeached! There isn't a law that allows a senator to be impeached, you say? Then create one!

Bringing this rant back to the junior senator from Utah who votes with Trump 80% of the time, my favorite line from his speech is this:

“I will only be one name among many, no more, no less, to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial, They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the president did was wrong, grievously wrong.”

I think that is the real why Real Republicans feel so betrayed by him: he puts principle above party and sees himself as a senator among senators. His biggest sin is refusing to divide the senate into either Republicans or minions of Satan.

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

The evidence did not prove the case. Was it actually proven? No. What if he is innocent? He wasn't a Russian agent. He wasn't doing this to interfere with an election either. The 'moral superiority' of the left and never-Trumpers is tiring. What if you are wrong? The whistleblower has suffered no retaliation and it is not against the law to name him which the President has not done. If you're using James Comey as a 'reliable' witness, it shows you haven't been paying attention to his well documented deficiencies. 

So Rush Limbaugh like Ellen, gets the medal of Freedom? Yes. He's an American radio icon who changed history. You don't have to like him. He is not a perfect man.  But, why on your high moral ground, don't you let an award to a dying man, beloved by millions of Americans, be presented without the snark. Isn't that what you want from the President...for him to let the accusations and attacks go?

 

Limbaugh is largely responsible for the Party of Trump. He gave far too many an appetite for his style of petty name calling and undermining the rationality of conservativism with bad sound byte arguments. I feel bad about the cancer though it is hard to not see the irony that a man who for years defended the tobacco industry against the link with various forms of cancer now finds his cigar habit gave him the lung cancer he insisted was overstated.

  • Like 2
Link to post
5 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Hopefully Utahns will get rid of Romney. He is and has always been, a RINO.

The presidential candidate for the Republican party  in 2012 has always been a fake Republican...?

RINO is such a silly term these days. It really means "someone who isn't 100% with Trump." Again, Republican party = Trump. Weird.

  • Like 2
Link to post

Stephen Colbert gave a heartfelt and touching commentary on Mitt Romney's vote:

Quote

Still, "on this dark day, there is someone I would like to thank for giving me a ray of hope," Colbert said, playing extended parts of Romney's Senate speech, in which he explained his vote to convict in terms of his faith and fealty to the oath he took to render impartial justice.

"You know, in my own small way I try to live my faith, and over the years, I've made a lot of fun of Mitt Romney," Colbert said, recapping some of the punchlines. "And I mean this sincerely: After seeing that speech, I would do all those jokes again, because that's the oath I took. But I do want to say, that was an inspiring speech. Because hearing Mitt Romney taking his oath to God seriously was like finding water in the desert." He explained how "we know Republicans are lying when they say that Trump didn't do anything wrong" and should remain in office, then how their votes to acquit condemn them: "Oaths may not mean a lot to some people. But here's what it's about: When you take an oath, you can't think one thing and say another. You are asking God to witness, on the pain of your immortal soul, that what you whisper in your heart is what comes out of your mouth." He quoted Thomas Moore in the play A Man for All Seasons, equating Trump with Henry VIII.

"So join me in thanking Mitt Romney for being honest, for not lying to us or to himself, for serving the Constitution rather than that monstrous child in the White House," Colbert said. "Why can't he be president? Thanks, Obama."

https://theweek.com/speedreads/894071/stephen-colbert-thanks-mitt-romney-seriously-honoring-oath-god-not-kneeling-trump

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Limbaugh is largely responsible for the Party of Trump. He gave far too many an appetite for his style of petty name calling and undermining the rationality of conservativism with bad sound byte arguments. I feel bad about the cancer though it is hard to not see the irony that a man who for years defended the tobacco industry against the link with various forms of cancer now finds his cigar habit gave him the lung cancer he insisted was overstated.

It is a sad irony isn't it. Lung Cancer seems to catch up to people in their '60's. It's a terrible thing. My Aunt died within six months of her lung cancer diagnosis. 

Link to post

I will not say if Romney was right or wrong, I respect the man either way.

His vote did raise a question for me. He said he was going to vote to subpoena witnesses so that he could know if President Trump was guilty or not. But no more witnesses were called. Thus,by his own past statement, he voted President Trump was guilty without knowing if Trump was guilty or not. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Limbaugh is largely responsible for the Party of Trump. He gave far too many an appetite for his style of petty name calling and undermining the rationality of conservativism with bad sound byte arguments. I feel bad about the cancer though it is hard to not see the irony that a man who for years defended the tobacco industry against the link with various forms of cancer now finds his cigar habit gave him the lung cancer he insisted was overstated.

Yep.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-rush-limbaugh-smoking-effects-cancer-diagnosis-20200203-4ma66mowazektovzh7hg2aynhq-story.html

Link to post
21 hours ago, halconero said:

I found his speech to the Senate very moving. It was interesting to pick up the tidbits here and there that hearken to his membership in the Church.

No one — not Romney or anyone else — should embroil the Church in partisan politics without authorization. I don’t begrudge him defending his action, but I wish he had found a way to do it without opening the Church up to partisan attack. Already I’ve seen ignorant, bigoted and derisive jabs about “Mitt’s magic underwear” and about him “praying to Joseph Smith.” 

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I will not say if Romney was right or wrong, I respect the man either way.

His vote did raise a question for me. He said he was going to vote to subpoena witnesses so that he could know if President Trump was guilty or not. But no more witnesses were called. Thus,by his own past statement, he voted President Trump was guilty without knowing if Trump was guilty or not. 

The quote was provided on the other thread, but Romney stated that he wanted more witnesses because we believed Trump was guilty with the information that had been presented, and hoped that hearing from more witnesses would give him a reason to vote not guilty.  

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

You replied "yep" to this statement "...Limbaugh is largely responsible for the Party of Trump. He gave far too many an appetite for his style of petty name calling..."

Just my observation; politicians here and globally have been petty name calling since the beginning. Both sides have done so, both sides currently use "petty name calling," and both sides will continue to do so. I could not blame Rush so easily.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The quote was provided on the other thread, but Romney stated that he wanted more witnesses because we believed Trump was guilty with the information that had been presented, and hoped that hearing from more witnesses would give him a reason to vote not guilty.  

Here it is:

“I hoped beyond hope that (Bolton) would say something that would raise reasonable doubt and I wouldn’t have to vote to convict the president,” Romney said. “My personal and political interests lie in not convicting but exonerating and I hoped that he would be able to testify that the president had broader motives than I had determined.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No one — not Romney or anyone else — should embroil the Church in partisan politics without authorization. I don’t begrudge him defending his action, but I wish he had found a way to do it without opening the Church up to partisan attack. Already I’ve seen ignorant, bigoted and derisive jabs about “Mitt’s magic underwear” and about him “praying to Joseph Smith.” 

What did he do to embroil the church?  

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...