Romney's Decision Process for Vote on Impeachment

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Your fear that somebody might be confused about whether the Church endorses his position seems myopic, weird, and a little paranoid; it is totally unsupported by what Romney actually said. If I'm wrong about that and there actually could be confusion about it, I'd expect the Church and/or Senator Romney to issue a press release and clarify the matter. 

In the Chris Wallace interview, Wallace continued to re-ask the question about why Romney was voting as he did, knowing how he would be severely punished by the president and the base because of it. This illustrates why it was important and valid for Romney to explain why he took the oath seriously.

I would think Mormons would be proud that Romney claimed his faith is the reason he took the oath so seriously. I would guess the only Mormons who have a problem with this are the ones who believe that Trump is God's chosen one and are really upset about a fellow Mormon taking a principled stand against that.

I have always found it more than a little strange when avowed apostates from the Church of Jesus Christ presume to pontificate to Church members how they should and should not behave. 

[Analytics]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

And right there we see the problem with playing the "I am deeply religious" card in a political situation. "I am following my conscience and my commitment to God, but everyone who thinks differently is not." Simply make your point, say I feel this is right, and move on. Don't drag the Church into it. That's the problem as I see it.

It is undoubtedly true that many voted to acquit did so out of fear, for selfish reasons, or because they talked themselves into believing that doing the wrong here would serve the greater good.

That said, Romney's exact words were:

The Constitution is at the foundation of our Republic’s success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of our Congress these many days. We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other’s good faith....

Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence. I’m convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character. As it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction. We’ve come to different conclusions fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.

I've got to say this is the most ironic conversation I've had here. It seems like at least once a week, the Deseret News writes an editorial about how "freedom of religion" means religious people should be able to speak and act in the public square without hiding their religion. Now a senator does so in a way that brings tears to people's eyes, and Mormons complain that he should keep his religion quiet?

I don't get it.

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Interesting tweet yesterday from Mike Lee, the senior senator from Utah. I’ll post it here without further comment:

 

“Congratulations @realDonaldTrump.   I’m looking forward to your next five years in office. Those who voted to remove you were wrong.  Very wrong.”

Did Lee say anything about his decision being formed because of his deep religious faith?

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/us/politics/trump-impeachment.amp.html

Did anyone listen to this? Dems are evil..President Trump says so. 

 

Each side is calling the other side evil. What's the point?

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Analytics]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have always found it more than a little strange when avowed apostates from the Church of Jesus Christ presume to pontificate to Church members how they should and should not behave. 

Romney performed an exemplary act of integrity and credited his faith for it. 

I acknowledge your right to wish he wouldn't have done that. Whatever.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, SteveO said:

No...I believe my point is the very one you make here...there isn't a side that is any more moral or benevolent than the other.  I was only expressing my bewilderment at people thinking all the problems are coming from one side.  Trump isn't the sickness in American politics today, just a symptom.  Our politics were sick long before 2016. 

I am not pretending to equality either. I am not even opposed to choosing the lesser of two evils. I am opposed to support of someone but when flaws come up and that person defaults to hitting the other side instead of admitting the problem they are not being honest with  themselves.

He is a symptom of a pervasive rot but I am tired of everyone pretending this is business as usual and that this is how it has always been. It is not. We chose this route. We can choose differently. Trump’s biggest base is dying off. Those supporting his tactics are basically handing his opponents a loaded gun. If these tactics can win and demographics continue as they have been can you imagine what an autocratic ideologue with popular support and this much contempt for constitutional separation of powers could do? I would not be more comfortable with a Democrat lamenting that their attorney general will not function as their political attack dog. If someone competent had this level of deference from a cowed Congress it would be downright terrifying. 

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Interesting tweet yesterday from Mike Lee, the senior senator from Utah. I’ll post it here without further comment:

 

“Congratulations @realDonaldTrump.   I’m looking forward to your next five years in office. Those who voted to remove you were wrong.  Very wrong.”

“Please sir, can I have some more?”

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Did Lee say anything about his decision being formed because of his deep religious faith?

I would love to read that if he tried.

[Analytics]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Did Lee say anything about his decision being formed because of his deep religious faith?

He didn't need to. Lee's decision was entirely consistent with self-preservation and ingratiating himself with the emperor. No explanation needed. 

Now conceivably it is possible that Lee and every other Republican acted with superlative impartiality, but if the president being tried were a Democrat, do you really think they would have all voted to acquit because that is the impartial thing to do? No way.

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It is undoubtedly true that many voted to acquit did so out of fear, for selfish reasons, or because they talked themselves into believing that doing the wrong here would serve the greater good.

That said, Romney's exact words were:

The Constitution is at the foundation of our Republic’s success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of our Congress these many days. We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other’s good faith....

Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence. I’m convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character. As it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction. We’ve come to different conclusions fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.

I've got to say this is the most ironic conversation I've had here. It seems like at least once a week, the Deseret News writes an editorial about how "freedom of religion" means religious people should be able to speak and act in the public square without hiding their religion. Now a senator does so in a way that brings tears to people's eyes, and Mormons complain that he should keep his religion quiet?

I don't get it.

That's true. You don't get it. So an LDS Senator (who is "deeply religious," and I believe he really is), says, "I know in my heart that I'm doing what's right" immediately after quoting "Do What is Right," "an old hymn that we sing in our Church." What do the words "I know in my heart that I'm doing what's right" mean in this (deeply religious LDS) context? He could have simply said, "I'm following my religious convictions and take my oath seriously."  Despite his disclaimers, he does call into question the sincerity and religious acuity of those with whom he disagrees. To me, that does not respect others' good faith. It would be better not to bring up one's religious faith in a trial situation, in my opinion. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would love to read that if he tried.

Would he be disingenuous if he did?

[Analytics]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That's true. You don't get it. So an LDS Senator (who is "deeply religious," and I believe he really is), says, "I know in my heart that I'm doing what's right" immediately after quoting "Do What is Right," "an old hymn that we sing in our Church." What do the words "I know in my heart that I'm doing what's right" mean in this (deeply religious LDS) context? He could have simply said, "I'm following my religious convictions and take my oath seriously."  Despite his disclaimers, he does call into question the sincerity and religious acuity of those with whom he disagrees. To me, that does not respect others' good faith. It would be better not to bring up one's religious faith in a trial situation, in my opinion. 

Why do you ignore how clearly and repeatedly Romney emphasized, "We've come to different conclusions fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience." Why is it wrong to say your religious faith compels you to follow the dictate of your conscience? 

[Analytics]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would he be disingenuous if he did?

It would come across that way. "Lucky me! God told me to vote in a way that happens to be self-serving!"

[bsjkki]

If the Russia investigation was bunk isn’t there just a smidgen intellectual honesty that the House manager case, could be implying motives that didn’t actually exist? A two year investigation was based on lies. This quickly assembled, one sided prosecution may just be politics.

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Why do you ignore how clearly and repeatedly Romney emphasized, "We've come to different conclusions fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience." Why is it wrong to say your religious faith compels you to follow the dictate of your conscience? 

I have no problem with his decision. I acknowledged his disclaimers, but I think his mistake was bringing up religion, hymns, and scriptures as reasons for his decision. People make decisions in many different ways.  I am sure many Senators and Representatives resorted to prayer in making this decision in addition to studying the issue. Did any of them talk about their faith in the way Romney did? Romney got the attention because he voted "his conscience" and inserted his deep religiosity into the mix. Did no one else "vote their conscience?" Are they less pious than him? I don't think so. But that's the impression one gets in listening to the interviews and speeches, despite the disclaimers. In my opinion.

He said more than that, and the Washington Post and Atlantic and Chris Wallace attributed his vote to his faith. As I said in the closed thread, I have an LDS friend who recently found himself in a similar situation in a local political controversy. After considering the facts, he could not come to a decision, so he resorted to fasting in prayer. I have no doubt Romney did the same, given his statement that this was the hardest decision he has ever had to make. After fasting and prayer, my friend felt comfortable about his decision to support a particular course. He was the swing vote. When he announced his vote to the council, he simply said he took his obligations seriously and came to such and such a conclusion. He did not elaborate on his deep religious faith nor did he say he used fasting and prayer to make the move.  In a court of law, what would be the reaction if a juror said, "I know I'm doing the right thing to convict because I am deeply religious?"

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It would come across that way. "Lucky me! God told me to vote in a way that happens to be self-serving!"

And Romney didn't do this? Or did God say, vote this way Bro Romney, and let the consequences follow? Who knows?

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That's true. You don't get it. So an LDS Senator (who is "deeply religious," and I believe he really is), says, "I know in my heart that I'm doing what's right" immediately after quoting "Do What is Right," "an old hymn that we sing in our Church." What do the words "I know in my heart that I'm doing what's right" mean in this (deeply religious LDS) context? He could have simply said, "I'm following my religious convictions and take my oath seriously."  Despite his disclaimers, he does call into question the sincerity and religious acuity of those with whom he disagrees. To me, that does not respect others' good faith. It would be better not to bring up one's religious faith in a trial situation, in my opinion. 

This was not a trial. At trials evidence and witnesses are introduced and we try to get the impartial to determine guilt.

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would he be disingenuous if he did?

I would just find it funny hearing him say God told me Trump is innocent. I have no idea if it would be sincere.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

If the Russia investigation was bunk isn’t there just a smidgen intellectual honesty that the House manager case, could be implying motives that didn’t actually exist? A two year investigation was based on lies. This quickly assembled, one sided prosecution may just be politics.

 

Ah yes, the bunk investigation that led dozens of indictments and about a dozen convictions. If it was a witch hunt it is more than a little shocking how many witches they found.

[Analytics]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

And Romney didn't do this?

No, he didn't. Romney is facing incredible scorn from the President, from his caucus, and from the voters. As we speak, there is a semi-serious attempt in Utah to change the laws so that Romney can be recalled. Some Democrats, independents, and so-called RINOs admire him for this decision, but so what? That won't protect him in a primary or give him any influence in the Republican-controlled senate. In his own words:

I’m aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters I will be vehemently denounced. I’m sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe that I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This was not a trial. At trials evidence and witnesses are introduced and we try to get the impartial to determine guilt.

I disagree that it was not a trial. Every news source that I have seen called it a trial. The evidence was presented with 18 witnesses and thousands of documents in the House. The House managers presented their evidence in the Senate. The Senate heard the evidence and referenced the witness through videos of their testimonies and documents. Before presenting their case, they made the unfortunate claim that their evidence of the President's wrongdoing was indisputable. That came back to bite them.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

I disagree that it was not a trial. Every news source that I have seen called it a trial. The evidence was presented with 18 witnesses and thousands of documents in the House. The House managers presented their evidence in the Senate. The Senate heard the evidence and referenced the witness through videos of their testimonies and documents. Before presenting their case, they made the unfortunate claim that their evidence of the President's wrongdoing was indisputable. That came back to bite them.

I found it indisputable and it was. Saying it bit them is a little silly. Humans defend the indefensible all the time. Trump should understand. He probably still says he had more people present at his inauguration than anyone else.

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would just find it funny hearing him say God told me Trump is innocent. I have no idea if it would be sincere....I found it indisputable and it was. Saying it bit them is a little silly. Humans defend the indefensible all the time. Trump should understand. He probably still says he had more people present at his inauguration than anyone else.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

No, he didn't. Romney is facing incredible scorn from the President, from his caucus, and from the voters. As we speak, there is a semi-serious attempt in Utah to change the laws so that Romney can be recalled. Some Democrats, independents, and so-called RINOs admire him for this decision, but so what? That won't protect him in a primary or give him any influence in the Republican-controlled senate. In his own words:

I’m aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters I will be vehemently denounced. I’m sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe that I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?

Excellent statement. Just leave it there and don't go into the deeply religious and the hymn and the scriptures and references to the Church. Once more for the record, I have no issue with his decision. I wish he had left the Church out of it.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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. 

However, "...people are dumb enough to vote for Trump" is not "hateful vitriol?"  Perhaps it was "designed by the devil himself," so we shouldn't blame anybody, because "its persuasive value is almost nonexistent.? I am pretty sure someone who voted for Trump are neither challenged or enlightened. Thanks for the non-biased opinion.