Romney "Not Invited" to the Party

Should have still been invited. Just don’t tell him he was gonna be the piñata. Tie him to a tree branch and beat him with sticks until candy falls out. Simple solution, really.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

Why are conservatives so angry at Mitt Romney, but giving Susan Collins a pass? Because she (finally) voted "YES" to approve Brett Kavanaugh as a S.C. Justice?

Collins is a known quantity. Everyone knows who and what she is. She also never put herself up as a presidential candidate who was supposed to represent conservatives and begged all of us to pull together in party unity to vote for him to unseat Obama, which many of us did.And he's now one of the Never Trump wing of the Republican party who can't seem to recall the importance of party unity when the shoe is on the other foot.

He (Romney) is no different than (how to get rich quick) John McCain. The party line suits him when it benefits his self interest. Otherwise monkey wrench "spotlight YES vote on witnesses" grandstanding (ME ME ME) is his and 20 handlers agenda. This person is as dishonest and insincere as is his belief in a dogma that could and should go to war with Extremist Islam.

I am just supremely annoyed at people who told me to shut and vote and hold my nose and then couldn't be bothered to do that same preferring to inflict Hillary on us instead.

No. He's not a blue-blooded establishment guy, but he's what you got. You go to war with the army you have instead of throwing a fit and surrendering because it's not well-mannered enough.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Should have still been invited. Just don’t tell him he was gonna be the piñata. Tie him to a tree branch and beat him with sticks until candy falls out. Simple solution, really.

When is he going to get the hint? School yard terms....

originally posted by: rickymouse
So, you guys are saying that Romney just accidentally helped the Republican party by proving the Republicans are not partisan in the senate? Hmmm. god works in strange ways.

No.
Just no.
What most are attempting to say Mitt Romney only does stuff for Mitt Romney.
Get it ?
Got it ?
Good.

a reply to: rickymouse

He's not a Christian. He's Mormon. Word is though even they don't like him. If not for helping pull off the Olympics in Utah I doubt they would even care about him other than his famous Mormon ancestors.

Guy was a corporate raider. These people have done serious damage to the America. They have ruined thousands of good companies and millions of lives and cities for nothing but concentrated greed. Trump is greedy but that's a different kind of greed. He actually built companies. He wasn't gutting them for the hell of it.

Mittens Romney was a pre-Tea Party republican. So a “Jeb!” Republican.

Both of those blue-stockings have more democratic friends than republicans.

Both far more comfortable golfing and plundering the public purse with the dems, than passing laws with the GOP

a reply to: carewemust

I thought you were hoping for witnesses?

He's not invited to something because he wants to hear witnesses in a trial?

Makes perfect cult-Trump sense.

a reply to: Trueman

Leaders of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Friday night formally disinvited Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) from attending the event next month over his vote to approve additional witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial.

So , "follow the political hive mind or face exclusion , we'll have no free thinkers here."

For me Marco Rubio has summed up the situation.

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office,"
thehill.com...

Best interest of the country or best interest of the Republican party ? , if that isn't a sign of broken politics I don't know what is.

He isn't invited to a party because he sticks to what he believes in?

Sounds like a sh!tty party.

i don't care for momonism but...good on him.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

Why are conservatives so angry at Mitt Romney, but giving Susan Collins a pass? Because she (finally) voted "YES" to approve Brett Kavanaugh as a S.C. Justice?

I think it’s because he lied to us, Collins didn’t but Mittens did.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

Why are conservatives so angry at Mitt Romney, but giving Susan Collins a pass? Because she (finally) voted "YES" to approve Brett Kavanaugh as a S.C. Justice?

I think it’s because he lied to us, Collins didn’t but Mittens did.

a reply to: DBCowboy

How did he lie? He said from the beginning that he'd like to hear what Bolton has to say.

Romney "Not Invited" to the Party

Go on admit it.

I'ts funny.

There's a reason he's called a RINO.

No matter which way he voted, would you really want Mitt to come to your party? He is as monotoned as Al Gore; and neither of them should be at the karaoke machine covering Tom Jones songs.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Trueman

Leaders of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Friday night formally disinvited Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) from attending the event next month over his vote to approve additional witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial.

So , "follow the political hive mind or face exclusion , we'll have no free thinkers here."

there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between a "hive mind" as you imply they are being part of a group where you share a COMMON INTEREST/VALUES/ECT.

a "hive mind" would be if they DEMANDED they vote for trump with clear evidence he committed an impeachable offence
like the democrats DEMAND you vote for trumps impeachment because he must be guilty because he is trump.
THAT is a "hive mind"

If he doesnt want or believe in the republican party he can be a "free thinker" and leave the party.
as the one democrat in the house did because he thought the democrats were off their rocker.
Ronald Regan did that when he became a republican.

now lets simplify this by a non political example

if you are a member of say a FORD car club , it means you all agree that FORD makes better cars. you may believe a mustang is better than say a F-150. That is sharing a similar value (ford) but a "free thinker" by believing one ford vehicle is better than another.

but if you say as a "free thinker" that a chevy camaro is better than any ford... then you dont believe as the group does and they are right to not "invite" you to a show/meeting .

look with any group its not up to them to change their core, values, cause, ect to satisfy an individual member.
its up to the member to decide if the group is what they want to be a member of.

add to it that small little fact is the SENATE , no matter who is there/what party they are, CONSTITUTIONAL JOB in an impeachment isnt to get "witnesses" to present NEW/MORE information . It is their job to take WHAT THE HOUSE PRESENTED in their articles of impeachment AS IT STANDS and determine IF THE CASE WAS MADE.
yes "witnesses" could be called to CLARIFY QUESTIONS on the evidence presented.
but the FACTS ARE (especially with bolton) that they wanted to present NEW EVIDENCE that WAS NOT IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
btw facts they could and if needed SHOULD have done BEFORE sending them.

in short he decided to play "the high ground" with no substance of any logic to back it up and he screwed himself.





For me Marco Rubio has summed up the situation.

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office,"
thehill.com...

this statement you seem to want to take out of context with the situation

he was "impeached" by the very technical letter of the law
doesnt mean that what they did has the FACTS to justify removal.
big difference./

Best interest of the country or best interest of the Republican party ? , if that isn't a sign of broken politics I don't know what is.

no its one side deciding the other has NO FACTS to back up their charges/impeachment

not broken but constitutional

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

a "hive mind" would be if they DEMANDED they vote for trump with clear evidence he committed an impeachable offence

Not quite.

such a group mentality characterized by uncritical conformity and loss of a sense of individuality and personal accountability.
www.dictionary.com...

Which is what they are doing to protect the chosen one.

Rubio thinks the allegations are true but that doesn't matter.

“Nevertheless, new witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true,” Rubio said.

Protect the Queen , protect the party and to hell with what is right or wrong as long as the opposition is seen to fail.

a reply to: Trueman

I watched the witness vote.

Romney = "Yeah"

Frigging butt-hurt traitor! He voted to drag this circus out indefinitely!

Guess what, dude? What goes around, comes around!

a reply to: gortex

That's not quite what Rubio said.

He said that if you take at face value what the Democrats allege was true, then the purpose of the Senate is to decide if the case rises to the level of removing the president from office. Allowing Bolton to come testify would be for the sole purpose of showing their case was "more true" not for any other reason, or to attempt to expand their case into new areas which is also outside the scope of the Senate's purpose.

So there was no reason to allow Bolton to testify.

None of that says anything about what he really thinks about the allegations (true/false) only what his personal threshold for analyzing the situation is.

He may think the president was attempting to extort Ukraine. He may also think the Democrats are totally full of it. But all that aside, all he has to do is decide if the case as presented is enough to remove a seated president under the Constitution, and all Bolton could do is reiterate what other witnesses and testimony already established.