It is interesting that we on day 3 of the 4th impeachment of a President in our history, and not a single comment on this thread.
I assume that's because nobody believes any opinions will change, and the Republicans afraid of Trump and his base will ignore the obvious and vote to acquit.
She was staking out an anti-Trump position before January 6. Now it is solidified. Frankly, I am surprised more potential 2024 candidates have not done so. She now appears to be in the vanguard.
The race is on. With Mitch on board now...the rats are running for the portals.
When Mitch stakes out a position, you know where the momentum lies.
It's a very good political move. If everyone holds hands and runs away, the Republicans can put Trump in a box that he can't really get out of. Sure, he'll complain about everyone, but then he just seems like an angry loser. The Q folks and those who are hard-line right will be seen as nuts, and eventually lose voters for being aligned with the mad king.
Mitch has done the math, and if history holds he'll be the majority leader again in 2 years. If that happens, he'll have 3+ years in control leading up to his campaign in 2026.
What's amazing is how easy Trump is making it for them.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 12, 2021 - 4:52pm
rgio wrote:
steeler wrote:
She was staking out an anti-Trump position before January 6. Now it is solidified. Frankly, I am surprised more potential 2024 candidates have not done so. She now appears to be in the vanguard.
The race is on. With Mitch on board now...the rats are running for the portals.
When Mitch stakes out a position, you know where the momentum lies.
She was staking out an anti-Trump position before January 6. Now it is solidified. Frankly, I am surprised more potential 2024 candidates have not done so. She now appears to be in the vanguard.
The race is on. With Mitch on board now...the rats are running for the portals.
She's so running for president. The locals around here call her a RINO along with her dad, so she might have trouble if some Tea Party nob gets in the race in 2022. But anyway, it's weird to be cheering her.
She was staking out an anti-Trump position before January 6. Now it is solidified. Frankly, I am surprised more potential 2024 candidates have not done so. She now appears to be in the vanguard.
She's so running for president. The locals around here call her a RINO along with her dad, so she might have trouble if some Tea Party nob gets in the race in 2022. But anyway, it's weird to be cheering her.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—"It's over, Pelosi! You've lost!" shouted a cackling Trump as he and the Speaker of the House hovered above the White House, locked in mortal combat. "You have no cards left to play!"
Pelosi, ragged and weary from battling her archnemesis for three years, managed a weak smile.
"Oh, I think I might have one card up my sleeve," she growled through clenched dentures. "Progressives, assemble!" Down on the ground, something incredible happened: brave Resistance warriors from all over began to assemble and scream at the sky, their powers adding to her own. Pelosi's eyes began to glow blue as she was filled with all the power of every outraged progressive across the land.
"Impeachment attack, go!!!" she cried as she unleashed a blue energy beam at Trump's chest — a desperate, final gambit to impeach him forever and remove him from office.
But Pelosi was horrified as Trump only absorbed the attack, feeding on its power.
"Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!" he cackled as he gained more and more power from the impeachment attack. "Foolish mortals! Every attack only makes me stronger!"
Trump then drew on all his newfound power to create chaos at the Iowa primaries, cause himself to be acquitted, and force Pelosi to have a mental breakdown, all in the same week. Unfortunately, he then tweeted something dumb, his only weakness. But Democrats then responded to his dumb tweet with even dumber stuff, causing his power to grow even more.
If Romney was secure in his faith, one would think it unnecessary to cite it as a justification for acting.
From Tuesdays State of the Union address:
"My administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the constitutional right to pray in public schools," he said. "In America, we don't punish prayer. We don't tear down crosses. We don't ban symbols of faith. We don't muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith, we cherish religion, we lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the glory of God."
If the administration believed that, wouldn't they celebrate Mitt's apparent relationship with his creator? Trump defends the right to practice religion in publicly funded institutions, but if that reflection leads to your not agreeing with him, you are to be punished and ostracized?
Since you are"bumping" old comments, somewhere here in the past few weeks I asked you if you really trust Trump. Deep down, you do believe Trump to be an honest, good, solid, religious guy?
Overall, I do trust Trump to be working on the things that I consider important, more than anyone else is working on those things.
Do I think Trump's personal position on religion to be solid ? I have my doubts. I did read up on that during the campaign, that he was a follower of Norman Vincent Peale and attended his church. What I do see Trump doing with religion is more the party platform than anything that he personally believes, but I can only guess and wonder about that. And the party platform may be consistent with his own beliefs or not.
During the campaign I stated that I thought Trump was not really interested in social issues and would mostly pay lip service to those. Earlier he had been a pro choice person for example as in it is none of the government's business. It is a personal choice within reason and medical safety.
His real priorities would be on economic and national security issues. The social stuff would be a side show.
If Romney was secure in his faith, one would think it unnecessary to cite it as a justification for acting.
From Tuesdays State of the Union address:
"My administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the constitutional right to pray in public schools," he said. "In America, we don't punish prayer. We don't tear down crosses. We don't ban symbols of faith. We don't muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith, we cherish religion, we lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the glory of God."
If the administration believed that, wouldn't they celebrate Mitt's apparent relationship with his creator? Trump defends the right to practice religion in publicly funded institutions, but if that reflection leads to your not agreeing with him, you are to be punished and ostracized?
Since you are"bumping" old comments, somewhere here in the past few weeks I asked you if you really trust Trump. Deep down, you do believe Trump to be an honest, good, solid, religious guy?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 9, 2020 - 9:49am
kurtster wrote:
Ah, I see that you have since edited your post while I was composing this reply, no matter ...
Warning ... rant on.
If you want to put it that way.
You labeled it; partly why I saw no need to respond. Also because my previous posts already had addressed points you had made about Romneyâs motivations and his references to his faith and his sworn oath.
However, I see it more, as being a politician, trying to have his cake and eat it, too. If Romney was secure in his faith, one would think it unnecessary to cite it as a justification for acting. Senator Collins cited her conscience and stopped at that. So Trump is correct. He did use his faith as a crutch as I see it.
As I said in previous posts, Romney did not reference God or his faith as telling him to vote to convict. Rather, he stated that the sworn oath to be impartial in serving as an impeachment juror was made under God and he was going to honor that oath of impartiality. He then explained why his review of the evidence led him to the conclusion he had reached. I am not religious, so I do not make references to a faith or God, but many people do without being accused of using either as a crutch â which implies weakness of an individual in need of cover. Trump made numerous references to God in his SOTU. Lastly, I do not understand your comment about having his cake and eating it, too.
Based upon my limited religious indoctrination up to 7th grade that was conducted at Thousand Oaks Baptist Church in Berkeley, California which is across the street from Thousand Oaks Elementary School that I attended from K to 3, the same school which the terrified little girl Kamala Harris was forced to go to when the democrats foisted busing upon the city, I'll attempt to pose this metaphor.
Irrelevant personal background information.
Romney, being the politician that he first and foremost is, wants to be the hero, the holiest of the holy and shame everybody else with a tactic from the progressive left with his use of blatant virtue signaling. Romney was attempting to do what the wise old King Solomon wisely refrained from doing ... cut the baby in half. In doing so, he sneeringly and self righteously raised himself above everyone else.
Much ranting here. I will try to decipher. Sure, Romney is a politician, with all that entails. So are all the other Senators. I would say that there obviously are motivations for these Senators to vote along party lines on controversial issues when the partiesâ positions are diametrically opposed. We do not get much more controversial than this impeachment. So the pressure to vote with party would be strong on both sides. Bucking that, as Romney did, subjected him to what I previously predicted would be a torrent of abuse. The condemnations of GOP Senators pale in comparison. Is that counterbalanced by praise Romney is receiving from Democrats? Perhaps, but I do not see it as of equal volume and especially not of equal consequence for him. What he did make clear in his floor speech was he did consider how history would view him because of this vote. So, yes, that is a personal calculation, but donât we want a Senator to consider how history will view his or her actions?
And the left is also trying to use Romney's "courageous and selfless act"⢠to shame all the repubs in the same process, challenging their personal faith as nothing more than hollow, hypocritical and phony.
The Democrats are pointing to Romneyâs vote. There is political gain in that, sure, but that does not mean Romney did not vote his conscience and based on impartial deliberation. I have not seen attacks on the personal faiths of GOP Senators. I have seen them attacked as voting party line.
You or someone else cited Romney's overt and apparently genuine sincerity as proof enough of his religious convictions ...
I said he sounded sincere in making the statement from the floor. And I said his reasoning behind his vote to convict made sense to me. I did not say either of those proved his religious bonafides. And, see my earlier part of this post response in which I describe how Romney cited his faith in explaining his determination to honor the oath of impartiality â not as the basis for his vote. An important distinction.
I'll up the Groucho quote with this one ...
Politics is show business for ugly people. Paul Begala
imho, you've been inside the Beltway too long ...
This comes up a lot in political debates everywhere. It is a bullshit phrase devoid of relevance.
Now it's your turn, to tell me that I am delusional and hopelessly blinded by my knee jerk partisan ways.
I was questioning your saying he traded on being holier than thou. For example, Romney today spoke about his sworn oath to God in deciding to vote for conviction. Was this him acting holier than thou? Being politically expedient working only for his own self interest and self promotion?
Yes.
So you were questioning his faith. Trump did that, too, today at the National Prayer Conference, denouncing him for using religion as a crutch.
Ah, I see that you have since edited your post while I was composing this reply, no matter ...
Warning ... rant on.
If you want to put it that way.
However, I see it more, as being a politician, trying to have his cake and eat it, too. If Romney was secure in his faith, one would think it unnecessary to cite it as a justification for acting. Senator Collins cited her conscience and stopped at that. So Trump is correct. He did use his faith as a crutch as I see it.
Based upon my limited religious indoctrination up to 7th grade that was conducted at Thousand Oaks Baptist Church in Berkeley, California which is across the street from Thousand Oaks Elementary School that I attended from K to 3, the same school which the terrified little girl Kamala Harris was forced to go to when the democrats foisted busing upon the city, I'll attempt to pose this metaphor.
Romney, being the politician that he first and foremost is, wants to be the hero, the holiest of the holy and shame everybody else with a tactic from the progressive left with his use of blatant virtue signaling. Romney was attempting to do what the wise old King Solomon wisely refrained from doing ... cut the baby in half. In doing so, he sneeringly and self righteously raised himself above everyone else.
And the left is also trying to use Romney's "courageous and selfless act"™ to shame all the repubs in the same process, challenging their personal faith as nothing more than hollow, hypocritical and phony.
You or someone else cited Romney's overt and apparently genuine sincerity as proof enough of his religious convictions ...
I'll up the Groucho quote with this one ...
Politics is show business for ugly people. Paul Begala
imho, you've been inside the Beltway too long ...
Now it's your turn, to tell me that I am delusional and hopelessly blinded by my knee jerk partisan ways.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 9, 2020 - 8:39am
John E. Sununu just made this point on Meet The Press (I might be paraphrasing the quote but the gist is accurate): âJust because Mitt Romney voted his conscience does not mean the other Republican Senators did not vote their consciences.â
The reverse , then, also would be true.
So, again, why is Romney being assailed by Trump, other members of the GOP, and many of his supporters?
A Trump tweet from a short time ago this morning, and this one is mild compared to other condemnations of Romney and Manchin:
âThey are really mad at Senator Joe Munchkin in West Virginia. He couldnât understand the Transcripts. Romney could, but didnât want to!â
See how he belittles Manchin by calling him âMunchkin.â Thatâs funny â isnât it? Authentic! ! Manchinâs sin Was his voting for conviction when Trump apparently thought he would break ranks and vote to acquit Trump. As I said, mild for Trump. Nowhere near the humiliation of having Vindman and his twin brother perp walked out of the White House.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 9, 2020 - 8:16am
sirdroseph wrote:
steeler wrote:
Getting lost in the debate about Romneyâs motivations and trustworthiness is whether his vote for conviction was correct based on the evidence presented and his explanation of how he saw that evidence.
I also am wondering why Trump and his supporters are so enraged by Romneyâs vote if it is easily dismissed as just a sore loser trying to get back at Trump. That outrage and the calls for retribution seem to be way over the top. Yet we should be more concerned about Democrats âfawningâ over Romney because of that vote?
The vindictiveness of Trump and many of his supporters should be the focus. Romney. Manchin, Schiff, Vindman, Sondland, Yovanovitch . . .
Operative words in your whole statement. The singularity is what will come back to bite you.
Yes, which is more alarming or of more consequence: Romney departing from party to cast the lone GOP vote for conviction or Trump calling for retribution against not only Romney but others, like those I named?
Getting lost in the debate about Romneyâs motivations and trustworthiness is whether his vote for conviction was correct based on the evidence presented and his explanation of how he saw that evidence.
I also am wondering why Trump and his supporters are so enraged by Romneyâs vote if it is easily dismissed as just a sore loser trying to get back at Trump. That outrage and the calls for retribution seem to be way over the top. Yet we should be more concerned about Democrats âfawningâ over Romney because of that vote?
The vindictiveness of Trump and many of his supporters should be the focus. Romney. Manchin, Schiff, Vindman, Sondland, Yovanovitch . . .
Operative words in your whole statement. The singularity is what will come back to bite you.
Since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, his government has waged a war against whistleblowers and official leakers. On his watch, there have been eight prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act â more than double those under all previous presidents combined.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 9, 2020 - 8:05am
sirdroseph wrote:
steeler wrote:
Getting lost in the debate about Romneyâs motivations and trustworthiness is whether his vote for conviction was correct based on the evidence presented and his explanation of how he saw that evidence.
I also am wondering why Trump and his supporters are so enraged by Romneyâs vote if it is easily dismissed as just a sore loser trying to get back at Trump. That outrage and the calls for retribution seem to be way over the top. Yet we should be more concerned about Democrats âfawningâ over Romney because of that vote?
More concern? No. Concern? Yes. Best to reread what I wrote. This fawning only makes Trump stronger. Everyone saw the evidence and make their own subjective opinions on what it means to them, Romney is no different. I think you underestimate the craving for authenticity which is a powerful driving force in this country right now. It gives both Sanders and Trump their strength. I am not talking about truth, you can be an authentic liar and Trump has that down to a science.
Getting lost in the debate about Romneyâs motivations and trustworthiness is whether his vote for conviction was correct based on the evidence presented and his explanation of how he saw that evidence.
I also am wondering why Trump and his supporters are so enraged by Romneyâs vote if it is easily dismissed as just a sore loser trying to get back at Trump. That outrage and the calls for retribution seem to be way over the top. Yet we should be more concerned about Democrats âfawningâ over Romney because of that vote?
More concern? No. Concern? Yes. Best to reread what I wrote. This fawning only makes Trump stronger. Everyone saw the evidence and make their own subjective opinions on what it means to them, Romney is no different. I think you underestimate the craving for authenticity which is a powerful driving force in this country right now. It gives both Sanders and Trump their strength. I am not talking about truth, you can be an authentic liar and Trump has that down to a science. Romney has rarely been seen in the same room with it.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 9, 2020 - 7:58am
Getting lost in the debate about Romneyâs motivations and trustworthiness is whether his vote for conviction was correct based on the evidence presented and his explanation of how he saw that evidence.
I also am wondering why Trump and his supporters are so enraged by Romneyâs vote if it is easily dismissed as just a sore loser trying to get back at Trump. That outrage and the calls for retribution seem to be way over the top. Yet we should be more concerned about Democrats âfawningâ over Romney because of that vote?
The vindictiveness of Trump and many of his supporters should be the focus. Romney. Manchin, Schiff, Vindman, Sondland, Yovanovitch . . .
Everything you just posted above is just your speculation based upon your own observations.
Either you take Romney at his word and believe him or you don't. The only proof that you are right is to take Romney at his word. And that you are required to trust Romney completely. A risky venture when dealing with a politician ...
I can only conclude that you believe him 100% whereas sird and myself both have some doubts and have expressed the reasons for having these doubts. Same as you have expressed the reasons for you believing Romney. Such is the court of public perception.
True, none of us has full access to Romney's thinking and motivations. And yes, you might call my last post full speculation—but it's informed speculation based on facts and an attempt at logical thinking.
Hmmm, isn't that what you constantly fault me for doing ? Taking some real facts and applying logic to connect dots as the basis for forming an opinion ?
Tsk, tsk ...
Do you dispute that he as a JD and MBA from Harvard? Or that he was Governor of MA and is a US Senator?
Do you dispute that Romney's vote did little or no harm to Trump?
No, I do not dispute these facts. And these are the basis for your connecting of dots to justify your conclusion / opinion.
Do you dispute that Romney's vote for removal of Trump likely ran counter to the good fortune of his career as a Republican politician and another possible run for POTUS?
If so, please explain how Romney's vote will materially help his standing, alliances and popular support among Republican politicians and voters?
Romney, being just another calculating politician is trying to take advantage of the short memory of the voter who by the time he comes up for re election will have forgotten his vote or that by that time, the facts will have proved him right and that he was the lone one to stand up for principle as a basis for his next political move.
From what I can tell your arguments about Romney and impeachment have little to no substance.
So here is one more fact that I will use to support my conclusion, that Romney is not pure of heart or intent and just another smarmy, slimy politician. And is not to be trusted as you and so many others do to justify your fawning over him. And evidence of your's and so many other's convenient short memory ... . Mitt Romney’s Twitter alter ego
OCTOBER 25, 2019 BY SHARYL ATTKISSON
“Pierre Delecto” strikes back at Romney critics
If there was ever any doubt that Republican Senator Mitt Romney (at least secretly) identifies as vehemently anti-Trump, the Twitter account under the name “Pierre Delecto” may have put that to rest.
Romney recently admitted he was using the “Delecto” pseudonym on social media. Romney told reporters it was “a way to have a private account to see what’s going on.” (Of course, one doesn’t need a private account to “see what’s going on.” Any Twitter user with an account under their real name can privately read whatever they wish without detection.) ... Though Romney didn’t publish very frequently on Twitter under his fake name, the content has garnered him some fans among both liberals and anti-Trump Republicans. Romney used “Pierre Delecto” to express pro-Romney and/or anti-Trump sentiments.
