It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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...
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?
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?
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 "hive mind" would be if they DEMANDED they vote for trump with clear evidence he committed an impeachable offence
such a group mentality characterized by uncritical conformity and loss of a sense of individuality and personal accountability.
www.dictionary.com...
“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.