Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Romney's Decision Process for Vote on Impeachment

Kevin Christensen

By Kevin Christensen
in In The News

Recommended Posts

bluebell Grand Master

bluebell

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never said the Church said not to express your faith. Can you not understand there is a difference between doing that and conveying the false impression, intended or not, that the Church endorses a particular political position?

 

Whether or not Romney did that with his statements yesterday is a matter on which we are going to have to disagree. 

I do understand the difference but I'm just going off what you said so you're confusing me a bit.  

You said that Romney's invocation of his faith in God was what gave the false impression that the church endorses a particular political position, right? 

As a reminder:  I asked "What did he do to embroil the church?" and you replied "Invoking his faith."

1
bluebell Grand Master

bluebell

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We ought to do all we can to avoid conveying a false impression, especially on a matter as serious as whether or not the Church endorses a political position. We have been asked to do as much in repeated injunctions from our leaders. 

I agree. I don't think that Romney did anything to convey a false impression.  He never implied, in any way, that he spoke for the church or was doing what the church asked/wanted him to do.  Anyone who believes he did imply that is going to struggle to provide evidence to support that assertion.  

3
bluebell Grand Master

bluebell

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A survey of internet chatter over the past day or so has persuaded me otherwise. 

All it has persuaded me of is that some people will use any excuse, no matter how tenuous, to malign the church.  And, that there are a lot of people who, when someone does something they don't like, will always think the appropriate response is to attach whatever it is that that person holds most dear.  Whether its their church, their wife, their kids, their safety, whatever.  

Those people are not being sincere.  They are being immature.  

2
Bill “Papa” Lee Grand Master

Bill “Papa” Lee

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moscow Mitch McConnell would love to hear you say all that, and Vladimir Putin is happy as a lark.

You know me, why are you responding to me is such a rude manor? Also, why are you responding in a sound bite kind of way at all? I did not do so, nor am I deserving of such a response, or to me it would not seem so. I am happy you got it out of your system, maybe this way you won’t do it to another poster when “he or she” uses an original thought. I can see now why political threads are usually not permitted. It would see that being brothers in the Gospel,  means little to nothing when it comes to political beliefs. 😢 

2
let’s roll Mentor

let’s roll

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is wisdom in the repeated injunction from our Church leaders to keep the Church above the partisan political fray.

Agree.  And I don’t believe Senator Romney did anything to bring the Church into the political fray.  

The reality is that the same circumstances that led to the Church benefitting from the “Mormon Moment” during the presidential campaigns when Senator Romney was in the race also result in some associating the Church with anything Sen. Romney does.

My personal view is that “the repeated injunction from our Church leaders” that Sen. Romney’s actions bring to mind is to not be afraid to stand up for what you believe.

2
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree. I don't think that Romney did anything to convey a false impression.  He never implied, in any way, that he spoke for the church or was doing what the church asked/wanted him to do.  Anyone who believes he did imply that is going to struggle to provide evidence to support that assertion.  

I added this later to one of my posts, so I’m not sure you saw it, and I do want you to consider it: 

In his public statements yesterday, Romney could have included a disclaimer to the effect that he was not speaking in behalf of his church nor should his action be taken to indicate that the Church has taken a position on impeachment or removal from office. 

I will add here that that’s what I mean by doing all we can to avoid conveying a false impression. With such a disclaimer, those using Romney’s action as a club to bludgeon the Church with would be left without excuse for their expressed bigotry and they would be less able to mislead those who may not have malicious intent but are ill informed  

Furthermore, there would be less likelihood that some naive persons might get the impression they must agree with Romney to be righteous members of the Church. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
1
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Agree.  And I don’t believe Senator Romney did anything to bring the Church into the political fray.  

The reality is that the same circumstances that led to the Church benefitting from the “Mormon Moment” during the presidential campaigns when Senator Romney was in the race also result in some associating the Church with anything Sen. Romney does.

My personal view is that “the repeated injunction from our Church leaders” that Sen. Romney’s actions bring to mind is to not be afraid to stand up for what you believe.

Have you considered my suggestion that he could have given a disclaimer to avoid misunderstanding in this highly charged issue?

Sometimes it is not enough just to speak accurately. We must express ourselves in a way that precludes misunderstanding. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I added this later to one of my posts, so I’m not sure you saw it, and I do want you to consider it: 

In his public statements yesterday, Romney could have included a disclaimer to the effect that he was not speaking in behalf of his church nor should his action be taken to indicate that the Church has taken a position on impeachment or removal from office. 

I will add here that that’s what I mean by doing all we can to avoid conveying a false impression. With such a disclaimer, those using Romney’s action as a club to bludgeon the Church with would be left without excuse for their expressed bigotry. 

Furthermore, there would be less likelihood that some naive persons might get the impression they must agree with Romney to be righteous members of the Church. 

Bringing the church in would have involved something like the Prophet told him what to do.

This is whingeing because you disagree with him. If he had said something in a similar vein dealing with abortion regulation I somehow doubt you would claim he was dragging the church into it by making a similar statement. I would argue that no one is dumb enough to believe Romney is taking a stand for the whole church especially since there are other LDS in both houses of Congress but people are dumb enough to vote for Trump so.......all bets are off.

Bernard Gui Grand Master

Bernard Gui

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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. :( 

My long term memory recalls the Democrat Party of Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and JFK.  What did they stand for and where would they be today? Never cared much for LBJ.

bsjkki Grand Master

bsjkki

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

people are dumb enough to vote for Trump so.......all bets are off.

It’s so nice to see your true thoughts about half the electorate. Not tired of winning. 😚

 

3
let’s roll Mentor

let’s roll

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Have you considered my suggestion that he could have given a disclaimer to avoid misunderstanding in this highly charged issue?

Yes I have.  And it seems ill-conceived on a number of levels.  Here are a couple:

First, it appears tied to how he voted.  Would you have suggested he give a disclaimer had he voted for acquittal on both counts?

Second, I don’t believe a disclaimer was necessary...I’d invite you to read bluebell’s posts on this thread.  In explaining the inefficacy of a disclaimer, she speaks accurately and expresses herself in a way that precludes misunderstanding.  I echo her comments.

1
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Bringing the church in would have involved something like the Prophet told him what to do.

This is whingeing because you disagree with him. If he had said something in a similar vein dealing with abortion regulation I somehow doubt you would claim he was dragging the church into it by making a similar statement. I would argue that no one is dumb enough to believe Romney is taking a stand for the whole church especially since there are other LDS in both houses of Congress but people are dumb enough to vote for Trump so.......all bets are off.

I think you are “whingeing” due to your irrational hatred for Trump. 
 

And your abortion analogy fails, because the Church has very clearly and repeatedly expressed opposition to abortion. Not so on the matter of impeachment. 

That said, if a politician who is a Church member had invoked his faith while expressing his position on abortion as vociferously as Romney has on this issue, I would expect that politician to offer a disclaimer as well. 

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

You know me, why are you responding to me is such a rude manor? Also, why are you responding in a sound bite kind of way at all? I did not do so, nor am I deserving of such a response, or to me it would not seem so. I am happy you got it out of your system, maybe this way you won’t do it to another poster when “he or she” uses an original thought. I can see now why political threads are usually not permitted. It would see that being brothers in the Gospel,  means little to nothing when it comes to political beliefs. 😢 

My remarks were accurate, not rude.  In each case, the named characters love the position you are taking.  I don't see why you make a religious issue of political palaver.  Would you make a religious issue of being in favor of a particular sports team?  The Gospel usually has nothing whatever to do with political positions, at least so far as I have been able to tell.  Perhaps they should, but, if so, what would that mean?  Would that change anything that people say?

The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Anijen said:

The petty name calling has been going on since the beginning of politics, I think it is a little bit of a double standard to blame Rush for it. I could be wrong...

It has been but in the past it was usually distanced from the candidate. It was their supporters that did it while the candidates at least pretended to stay above it all. There are a few dishonorable exceptions of course. Rush turned hateful vitriol into propaganda and got a generation voluntarily listening to hours of propaganda on an almost daily basis. It was propaganda designed by the devil himself. The intent was to incite anger and hate. Its persuasive value is almost nonexistent. It does not challenge or enlighten. It teaches next to nothing about the realities of politics. If you watch people listening to it are they ever happy? The laughs are always hollow mockery. They might be energized but it is a negative energy that manifests more as opposition to “evil” as opposed to any devotion to “good”.

It is the kind of thing Amalickiah did after becoming king when his new pet Lamanites did not want war with the Nephites and he decided to put towers up on travelled routes and hired people to scream from them about how the unLehite people were stealing everything from the great Americans who are listening. 

1
bsjkki Grand Master

bsjkki

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

Even in the Clinton impeachment both sides got together to work out rules for the investigation and trial in the House and the Senate. 

 

Yeah, this didn’t happen in the House so there were repercussions in the Senate. 

They brought a case with fatal flaws. I keep wondering why? If they were serious they would have litigated and taken the time to build a strong case. If the truth was on their side, why not allow at least one witness for the defense.

Five more judges sent to the floor yesterday. Happy days. 😀

2
Bernard Gui Grand Master

Bernard Gui

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are “whingeing” due to your irrational hatred for Trump. 
 

And your abortion analogy fails, because the Church has very clearly and repeatedly expressed opposition to abortion. Not so on the matter of impeachment. 

That said, if a politician who is a Church member had invoked his faith while expressing his position on abortion as vociferously as Romney has on this issue, I would expect that politician to offer a disclaimer as well. 

He could easily have made his point simply by citing his reasons for accepting the evidence as convincing and declaring his desire to follow his moral obligations, which he did, without naming hymns and scriptures and bringing the Church into the picture. 

1
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Yes I have.  And it seems ill-conceived on a number of levels.  Here are a couple:

First, it appears tied to how he voted.  Would you have suggested he give a disclaimer had he voted for acquittal on both counts?

Second, I don’t believe a disclaimer was necessary...I’d invite you to read bluebell’s posts on this thread.  In explaining the inefficacy of a disclaimer, she speaks accurately and expresses herself in a way that precludes misunderstanding.  I echo her comments.

On your first question: Yes I would have suggested a disclaimer if he had so extensively invoked his faith as he did in this instance. 
 

Second point: I have read her posts. That’s an odd invitation to make after I have been responding to them. And Bluebell’s comments and manner of expression are not up for discussion here; Romney’s are. 

bsjkki Grand Master

bsjkki

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It was propaganda designed by the devil himself. The intent was to incite anger and hate. Its persuasive value is almost nonexistent. It does not challenge or enlighten. It teaches next to nothing about the realities of politics. If you watch people listening to it are they ever happy?

Hyperbole much? And yes. Very happy. 😀

 

3
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Yeah, this didn’t happen in the House so there were repercussions in the Senate. 

They brought a case with fatal flaws. I keep wondering why? If they were serious they would have litigated and taken the time to build a strong case. If the truth was on their side, why not allow at least one witness for the defense.

Five more judges sent to the floor yesterday. Happy days. 😀

And taking the time to let the courts adjudicate the subpoenas to White House officials would have obviated the second article of impeachment before it was sent to the Senate. The eliminate-Trump-at-all-costs mentality caused the Democrats to do a rushed job and present a weak case. They have themselves to blame. 

1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...