Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Mitt Romney votes to convict and remove Donald Trump (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
I have the same fear. Someone like Sens. Josh Hawley or Tom Cotton. I do think that to an extent Trump is sui generis, and you can't easily separate the white nationalism from the Trumpian craziness, but I still worry about the damage that could be done by someone with a bit more basic competence.
ETA: I remember back in the '90s, people would occasionally say there was so much they liked about Clinton, but they wished he could keep it in his pants. My feeling at the time was that it was an (ahem) package deal, the political skill along with the lack of personal discipline. Something similar is true of Trump.
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski
Footballguy
Hanging onto "what he did was illegal", or "he lied" is the best you can do at this point I suppose. Sure it was illegal, and he lied, he cheated. However, trying to argue that the driving factor for the push to impeach or that the dem's interest in the Mueller report was anything but partisan and political seems insincere to me.
That is why is was handled so poorly.. partisanship over objectivity, party over all. Level heads did not prevail.
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski
Footballguy
And if this is where you set the bar, the line of Republicans and Democrats will go around the block.
Sweet J
Footballguy
I'm trying to think of a decent analogy to discuss this.
"Sure what he does was illegal. But I think it is overboard to try and remove him." I can respect this response, I guess. It is akin to the Democratic response to the Clinton impeachment.
"Sure what he did was illegal. But the only reason to try and impeach was for partisan reasons" doesn't garner the same amount of respect, at least from me.
It's like the difference between, "I only kissed that other woman; she didn't have to kick me out and file for divorce without at least trying to work it out," and "I only kissed that woman; the only reason she kicked me out is because she's a ##### and her friends always hated me and it's really her fault."
matuski
Footballguy
Setting the bar at "illegal" (or lying, or cheating) is extremely vague and a very low bar for politicians... more like "I only looked at that other woman".
Which then of course makes "she didn't kick me out and file for divorce" the reasonable reaction/response.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Yes sure they all do it right? Yet no evidence of such things from them all. Very strange.
Also no...doing illegal things isn't a very low bar. We should hold out leaders to standards and one of those involves legality.
matuski
Footballguy
All do what? Lie, cheat? No evidence of politicians lying and cheating? lol.
Trump's illegal is worse than Hillary's illegal! Maybe it was (it was imo), but you only care because of your position on the political spectrum.
It isn't that you are unaware of past "illegal" behaviors of democrat politicians - you just deny it, brush it off, or argue it isn't the same as the other..
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Hillary isn’t President. I didn't support her or vote for her. Why deflect with her? She has been investigated over and over...if they find something...great, lock her up.
Let me know what dems I deny that are in office or I have supported...please try. Rather than making baseless assertions about me to deflect.
This...they all do it isn't a logical defense for Trump or criticism of the Democrats holding him responsible.
Last edited by a moderator:
joffer
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t know if you watched or heard President Trump’s disgraceful performance yesterday, in which he insisted he did nothing wrong, trashed the religious beliefs of his opponents, and declared the that the Democrats who opposed him were “evil scum”; all the while as the Republican leadership in the House and Senate cheered him on and gave him standing ovations.
So my answer to you is this: I am not discounting those conservatives out there who don’t like Trump very much: they have discounted themselves.
This is what’s self-evidently false. It shocked and disturbed many lifelong Republicans — even some Trump appointees.
What is John Bolton’s position on the political spectrum? What is Mitt Romney’s? What is mine?
The idea that illegally jeopardizing our national security interests in order to gain an illegal advantage in a national election could never bother a neutral person — only a partisan Democrat — is complete nonsense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dickies
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Statements like matuski's also conveniently ignore Michael Atkinson's role in this. But they have to because his actions debunk the idea that it was all concocted by the whistleblower and Adam Schiff and propagated by dems who can't accept the election results.
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
I thought Romney's speech explaining why he was going to vote to convict was a little odd. Yes, he had several examples of why he came to that conclusion. He wanted to hear from Bolton to clear Trump. But he should have wanted to hear from Bolton for the first hand knowledge that Trump was guilty (Assuming Trump is innocent and the House needs to proved guilt). But to me, the biggest inconsistency was for people as religious as Romney is, I would not think he would have any reservations about his decision. He stated his faith guided him to this decision. People with strong faith are very confident about their decisions that are based on faith or their religious beliefs. The fact that Romney got so emotional it was like he personally felt he was letting down the GOP. I wonder if there was not some other outside influence for his decision (conspiracy on someone paying him off or blackmailing him?). 
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
The way I interpreted this part is he thought that the House Managers proved their case but hoped (kind of a pipe dream hope) Bolton could explain how he was wrong.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
ericttspikes
Footballguy
Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho would restore dignity to the office.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
sho nuff said:
Space Captain
Footballguy
What was illegally done that jeopardized our national security interests in order to gain an illegal advantage in a national election?Maurile Tremblay said:
Jobber
Footballguy
This is an interesting point. Post Trump, I see a real problem for the GOP. A huge number of current Republican voters want nothing to do with a candidate who stands for the principles of the party. They want an Internet troll instead. In 2024 when folks like Bush, Romney and Cruz are up there in front of them, many will lose interest. Some will stay home. And a LOT of former Republicans (like me) will have already left the party.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
In 2024, whoever the Dems nominate, will walk in.
sho nuff
Footballguy
1 Withholding aid to Ukraine (illegal according to the GAO)
2. Aid for Ukraine is part of out national security interest (guessing that was the angle there) thus withholding aod would be against that interest.
3. To investigate his political rival (the lead candidate at the tome to face him) is what it was about as far as gaining an election advantage.
apalmer
Footballguy
BUT he thought it would help get him re-elected, so it was good for the US, so none of it is illegal enough to matter.
Space Captain
Footballguy
As I understand it, the aid was released before the end of the fiscal year and therefore in accordance with the law. Asking any country that accepts aid to investigate corruption, whatever type of corruption that may be, seems reasonable.
sho nuff
Footballguy
He dodnt ask about corruption though...he specifically asked about his rival with zero probable cause or evidence of corruption .and the GAO disagrees with you on legaliity.
timschochet
Footballguy
I recognize that this has been the pattern since 1992: 8 years of Democrat followed by 8 years of Republican followed by 8 years of Democrat, etc. But it doesn't have to be this way. It’s still a relatively small sample.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
With a few minor exceptions the pattern goes back to the 50s. Of course it doesn't HAVE to be that way. But it probably will. Especially if the economy falters.
In fact, I think the divide we're seeing now with Dems (Establishment/moderate vs progressive/liberal) will be the type of divide we'll see in 2024 between the Trump style and more traditional Rs.
Cheese and Crackers
Footballguy
They failed to give Congress a detailed written explanation for the delay, which is not in accordance with the law.
Seems reasonable, until you realize they have never been concerned about corruption.
In '17 and '18 no-strings-attached aid was given to Ukraine, which was arguably more corrupt (under the previous president) than it is now.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I dunno, America seems to have been in an elastic electoral wobble since that time. Look at the last 3 turnovers. Perot made 92 & 96 murky, Bush Jr by a couple thousand votes in Florida in 00, Trump by roughly 88K votes in 3 Midwest states in 16.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
I'm skeptical that the Republican party would ever fracture, simply because there's nowhere else for someone to go if they are Pro Life and anti-tax.
dkp993
Footballguy
One could only hope this GOP fracture happens. Then the 2 extremes from each party can go on screaming at each other while the moderates from each side can start working together. Unfortunately I see zero indication of this happening. Had there been something like a handful of GOP Senators that had voted for witnesses (5 to 8 or so), even if they ultimately vote not to remove, I’d feel a glimmer of hope. But if there one thing the GOP does well that’s tow the party line. No fracture is coming.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Space Captain
Footballguy
Seems reasonable because it is reasonable.Cheese and Crackers said:
I expect folks elected to office to be prudent with taxpayer dollars. If a country is known to have problems with corruption, elected officials are derelict (imo) if not leveraging aid to compel said country to investigate and reduce corrupt activities.
Why did Congress appropriate aid in '17 & '18 with no strings attached to a country that was arguably more corrupt than it is now? Congress must never have been concerned about corruption, I guess.
It may have taken a few years, but the Trump administration got around to it. Better late than never.
As far as failing to give Congress a detailed written explanation for the delay in the aid, Alan Dershowitz has presented arguments why it is not illegal and they seem to be centered around the constitutional powers granted to the President regarding foreign policy.
You may not agree with them, but with all due respect, I'm going to have to go with the classic liberal Harvard Law School scholar of United States constitutional law on this one.
dkp993
Footballguy
You mean the one who argued this atrocious argument....
"And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
Last edited by a moderator:
Space Captain
Footballguy
Space Captain
Footballguy
This President, each member of the House and the Senate. All elected officials.Prudent with taxpayer money? Really? This president?thats hilarious as the deficit explodes.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Your position is that the guy who has recently paid 10s of millions in fines for running corrupt foundations and online universities, and who has never withheld aid from any country, even Ukraine, except for once in 2019 when it entailed his political rival, was suddenly concerned about corruption?
Come on now.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Sure...but it’s laughable claiming that President Trump is prudent with taxpayer money.
Space Captain
Footballguy
I beg your pardon if I was incorrect. I was going off the Wikipedia page I visited for the information I used. Perhaps I will have to inform them of the mistake.
sho nuff
Footballguy
And the guy who has run up the deficit...and spent millions at his own resorts is being prudent with taxpayer money by getting another country to investigate his rival in exchange for withheld funds.
Similar threads
