Mitt Romney Explains Why He Voted to Convict

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/05/mitt-romney-impeachment-vote-speech-transcript-110849

I believe that is his speech on Wednesday. Didn't he go to the well of the Senate on Tuesday to talk about his decision process?

[bsjkki]

Don't you love the press.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-05/romney-utah-trump-impeachment" Utahans reacted to Sen. Mitt Romney’s decision to break Republican ranks with a mixture of pride and dismay Wednesday, with some in this majority-Mormon state even suggesting that his vote to remove President Trump from office recalled a prophecy attributed to the church founder Joseph Smith.

Although generally debunked as apocryphal by modern historians, the so-called White Horse Prophecy dates to 1844 when Smith himself was a candidate for president of the United States. The Mormons — members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — have long regarded the U.S. Constitution as a divinely inspired document.

According to the legend, Smith predicted that someday the Constitution would be in extreme danger — hanging “like a thread as fine as silk fiber”— and that a member of the church would ride in on a white horse to save it.

“I think Mitt Romney is under the impression that he is going to be the white horse Republican who will save the country,” said Salt Lake City historian Will Bagley, a frequent critic of the church and its leaders. “Whether or not that would happen is a different matter, but I think if it came down to picking between Mitt Romney and Mike Pence, most people would go with Romney.”

[Bernard Gui]

A friend who is LDS and occupies a very important position in a local political council was faced with a crucial decision that would impact a lot of people. He would be the swing vote that would change long establish policies that needed attention and was getting considerable pressure from the two opposing sides. He was very concerned about making the correct decision and weighed both sides without being able to come to a conclusion. He made it a matter of prayer and fasting. He received an answer that directed him in a certain way that he thinks will be the best for all concerned, even though it went against some very popular and powerful people in the group. When he announced his decision, he did not say "I fasted and prayed to God and he told me to do this...." That would have inappropriately  inserted his religious beliefs and the Church into a political situation.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

He is the 'man of the hour.'

Was it a brilliant political move?

Who can doubt that?

Republicans see him as virtuous and Democrats see him as one of their own.

Inspired or not the decision did not hurt him politically.

And there's no blood on his hands. His vote really didn't matter.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Do you believe they had 'pure' motives or mixed? They were investigating their opponent in an election cycle?

 

Problem with that argument is that Trump was impeached for investigating his opponent in an election cycle.

So the question is, is it right or wrong to investigate an opponent in an election cycle?

Yes or no?

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

In a jury situation like this, would you reveal to the court that one of the reasons you hold the defendant guilty is that you consulted God and he told you the defendant was guilty? What would be the proper reaction from the judge?

As a juror I don't have to reveal why I voted to convict or acquit.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

There doesn't need to be a violation of a law to remove a president from office, you only need to to get enough senators to agree, for whatever reason, to remove him.

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. 

You did exactly what I was hoping wouldn’t be done. You brought up impeachment when the question I would like to have answered is whether or not US presidents have the lawful right to withhold hard earned US tax dollars from corrupt foreign governments?

[Danzo]

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A friend who is LDS and occupies a very important position in a local political council was faced with a crucial decision that would impact a lot of people. He would be the swing vote that would change long establish policies that needed attention and was getting considerable pressure from the two opposing sides. He was very concerned about making the correct decision and weighed both sides without being able to come to a conclusion. He made it a matter of prayer and fasting. He received an answer that directed him in a certain way that he thinks will be the best for all concerned, even though it went against some very popular and powerful people in the group. When he announced his decision, he did not say "I fasted and prayed to God and he told me to do this...." That would have inappropriately  inserted his religious beliefs and the Church into a political situation.

So you are ok with someone seeking revelation on an important issue. You are just uncomfortable with that person  admitting it.

[Rajah Manchou]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If Romney did those things, and I am sure he was thoughtful and prayerful to come to his decision, so much the better for him. However, I have a decision to make in a trial. I am a sincere occultist. I play with my Ouiji board, sing a pagan hymn to Crom or two in my head, consult my crystals and a pig's entrails, and then tell the world that this is how I got my answer to convict the criminal. Anything wrong with that? 

I can no longer tell the difference between your argument and the arguments of those arguing for prayer and God to be removed from government. 

So what do you think, should we keep In God We Trust on the penny so long as Mitt Romney prays to the same God as Donald Trump?

Should we pledge allegiance to God, but only when he gives us all the same answer?

[bsjkki]

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

 

Problem with that argument is that Trump was impeached for investigating his opponent in an election cycle.

So the question is, is it right or wrong to investigate an opponent in an election cycle?

Yes or no?

I was pointing out how ridiculous an argument it was. Let's just say, you better have a airtight proper predicate. While I was listening to the House managers, I could not help be reminded of another case of investigating one's political rival. There is a popular saying about how they accuse others of doing what they have done. Interesting strategy.

 

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, teddyaware said:

You did exactly what I was hoping wouldn’t be done. You brought up impeachment when the question I would like to have answered is whether or not US presidents have the lawful right to withhold hard earned US tax dollars from corrupt foreign governments?

I don't think it is good for a president to use taxpayer money to bribe foreign officials with foreign aid(or lack thereof)  to help him get elected.   I think bribery is impeachable even if it were legal.

 

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

You did exactly what I was hoping wouldn’t be done. You brought up impeachment when the question I would like to have answered is whether or not US presidents have the lawful right to withhold hard earned US tax dollars from corrupt foreign governments?

Trump gave the Ukraine the money (maybe he should be impeached for that)

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I was pointing out how ridiculous an argument it was. Let's just say, you better have a airtight proper predicate. While I was listening to the House managers, I could not help be reminded of another case of investigating one's political rival. There is a popular saying about how they accuse others of doing what they have done. Interesting strategy.

 

I get tired of people justifying sin just because others are sinning too.

[Rajah Manchou]

18 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I was pointing out how ridiculous an argument it was. Let's just say, you better have a airtight proper predicate. While I was listening to the House managers, I could not help be reminded of another case of investigating one's political rival. There is a popular saying about how they accuse others of doing what they have done. Interesting strategy.

The funny thing about all these arguments is they work for either side of the discussion, just replace the names and we flip our strongly held opinions. 

It is wrong for (Republicans/Democrats) to investigate (Trump/Biden) to prove abuse of power and/or corruption but it is right for (Republicans/Democrats) to investigate (Trump/Biden) to prove abuse of power and/or corruption.

If you're answer changes depending on the name, you're doing it wrong and that is precisely why Romney said he voted the way he did.

[bsjkki]

15 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I get tired of people justifying sin just because others are sinning too.

The thing is, I don't believe the President did anything wrong. I don't believe the motives they ascribed to him were valid or in evidence. Just because they repeated charges over and over and over and over doesn't make make them true.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

Edited February 6, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I had exactly the same thoughts. Implying that his decision was made by confirmation of the Spirit improperly introduced his religious beliefs into the deliberative process. He could have made the same points without references to his religion. 

Some Mormons I know have a very hard time separating out the spiritual from the temporal.  Hugh Nibley and Brigham Young shared that tendency.  This is also true of some non-Mormon scholars. I recall the late George Mendenhall delivering a lecture at the BYU Law School.  It was supposed to be strictly on biblical issues, but he ended up applying his views to modern political figures -- providing his opinion that those who seek high political office are almost always corrupt and interested primarily in power.

We still remember today the courage of those few who stood up to the shameless, Orwellian evil of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

[sunstoned]

57 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

 

Problem with that argument is that Trump was impeached for investigating his opponent in an election cycle.

So the question is, is it right or wrong to investigate an opponent in an election cycle?

Yes or no?

You don't have leaders from other countries help your election campaign.  

[Nemesis]

We are going to start closing threads that are not started in the correct category.

 

Nemesis