kurtster wrote:
 

I see you are still painting with that same broad brush.

 steeler wrote: 
No, just a reaction to all of the fawning over Romney like all of a sudden he is now a good guy.

I was looking for a picture with a dog on the roof of a station wagon and found this instead.

None you would ever really consider voting for him for anything.  Y'all would sooner cut off body parts than vote for him.

 kurtster wrote:
 

Speaks highly of Trump? I would say it does not, especially because Trump long ago gloated that Romney came “groveling” before him. 

Edit: That was a short break, kurtster.

second edit: The bipartisan vote in the Senate was for conviction. Yes, it was only one Republican, and votes for conviction fell far short of the 2/3 necessary for conviction, but the Republicans and Trump supporters seemed to find it significant when 2 Democrats voted with Republicans in the House vote, including one who switched parties, to the GOP, after that vote.

 sirdroseph wrote:
 

To those who believe with sincerity, absolutely. 

 rgio wrote:

 
So now religion is a virtue?   I am sorry but my cynical radar is just going off the charts with all of this. 

 

Edit:  Had I not started voting Libertarian in 2010, I would have voted for Obama again cause this guy has always given me the heebies.  See no reason to change now.

 steeler wrote:
 
Romney said he has an â€œinescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it.”

It's hard to doubt he means that.  If he happens to benefit from it politically (if he cares), all the better.  I think if it ends his career...he doesn't really care enough to stain his name by joining the others.

 sirdroseph wrote:
 

We all are entitled to our opinions. Because I cannot read his mind to discern “true” intentions, I am going to credit his words on this matter spoken from the Senate floor, which  ring true to me  I could be wrong, but I am not going to ascribe bad motivations to him based solely on his being a politician. 

 rgio wrote: 
I assure you Mitt is out on a limb with this one.  My hypothesis, he still has hopes for a Presidential run and is trying to make a name for himself and hopes that there are a lot more Steelers out there who buy this or he is legitimately really still angry over their contentious relationship and getting his revenge which is more likely scenario.

 sirdroseph wrote:
 
So how much fun would it be if Mitt has a coup planned....and he's somehow coerced half of the Republican Senators to "take back the party" by voting FOR impeachment and removing Trump?

I know...more conspiracy theory from the guy who swears he's not into conspiracy theories...but imagine if Trump was actually removed from the White House in about 3 hours.  

I would vote for Romney over anyone on the planet if he could pull that off!  He can have the entire Supreme Court, every appellate court judge....all of them in return.

 steeler wrote: 
Where we are. So you are telling me that Mittens is the only Republican that came to this conclusion?  He is the only courageous Republican statesman?   Kind of impossible to prove intentions, his reasoning may be sound, but it is not his reasoning.  That is my opinion and I stand by it.

 sirdroseph wrote:
 

Read what he said on the floor regarding his decision to vote to convict and see if you disagree with his reasoning.

You have made it clear that you are reluctant to  ascribe good motivations to any politician. Where does that leave us? 

Enlighten me as to Romney’s transgressions that lead you to conclude that his vote on this impeachment is motivated primarily  by pettiness and bad blood between he and Trump. 

 steeler wrote: 
What in ol Mittens past makes you think he had pure motivations?   I see pettiness and personal issues with Trump and a golden opportunity to stick it to him.  I am not going to assume any of these attributes to virtually any politician and certainly not Mittens.  (they have a past)

Mitt Romney.

Statesman.

Courageous.

Applause.

Respect.

 kurtster wrote:
 
Some elites are desirable (for some). Wouldn't want to give the unwashed rabble too much power, right?

 islander wrote: 
That is the whole point of the Senate as intended.

 kurtster wrote:
 

The electoral college was a bargain to get the smaller states to sign on. It functions by basically giving them outsized voting power (yes to balance the influence of more populated areas).   

But small power centers is exactly what we have now. And the outsized influence of places like Iowa, or the senate that is rapidly becoming non-representational are demonstrating the need for some changes, especially when they are using their influence to push policy ideals that are not representative of what we should be as a modern nation.  Enjoy it while it lasts, the backlash that pushed trump to power has another side to the pendulum, it will swing back. 

The USA in its infancy was paternalistic and racist.  But it was also the single most  inspirational democracy in the period.  The trouble with American democracy is that the constitution has not been updated to the evolving realities of the late 20th and early 21st century.   

Combining the head of state and the head of government in the same person is fraught with risk.   Shoe-horning a broad range of ideologies and policies into just 2 parties is far too limiting.  First-past-the-post electoral systems may appeal to those who view politics like a winner takes all sporting event but does little to promote social cooperation and cohesion.  

 kurtster wrote:
 
That's an interesting word-blender you got there, but I believe our founders would have considered a republic to be a form of democracy. Either way, a requirement of a republic is a separation of powers. Trump and the Senate are very literally saying there is zero separation.